The question that the Court directs the parties to address is whether, and if at all on what Counts of the Complaint, this Court could now enter judgment against defaulting Defendants Baydoun and Harajli. Under the rule of Frow,"[w]hen a default is entered against one defendant in a multi-defendant case, the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants. If plaintiff loses on the merits, the complaint should then be dismissed against both defaulting and non-defaulting defendants." Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474, at *3 (6th Cir. 1988) (table case). In explaining the basis for the Frow rule, the Sixth Circuit in Kimberly observed:

” Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474, 1988 WL 93305, at *3 (6th Cir. 1988). See also Charvat v. DFS Servs. LLC, 781 F.Supp.2d 588, 591 (S.D. Ohio 2011); Charnock v. Anderson, No. 2:14-cv-472, 2015 WL 12683414, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 1, 2015); ArmorSource LLC v. Kapah, No. 2:18-cv-905, 2019 WL 1039748, at * 2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 5, 2019).

Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474 (Table) (6th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

If plaintiff loses on the merits, the complaint should then be dismissed against both defaulting and non-defaulting defendants.” Charnock v. Anderson, No. 2:14-CV-472, 2015 WL 12683414, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 1, 2015) (quoting Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474, 1988 WL 93305, at *3 (6th Cir. 1988)).

Moreover, “[w]hen a default is entered against one defendant in a multi-defendant case, the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants.” Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474 (Table), 1988 WL 93305, at *3 (6th Cir. 1988). Because Tarter Industries' claims against QMC's codefendants are proceeding to trial, the Court will refrain from entering a default judgment at this time.

Further, “[w]hen default has been entered against one defendant in a multi-defendant case, the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants.” Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474, 1474 (6th Cir. 1998). If the plaintiff loses on the merits, the matter is dismissed against both the defaulting and non-defaulting parties.

. The Sixth Circuit adopted this approach in Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474, 1988 WL 93305, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 1988) (“The Frow rule is a narrow one, however, and applies in general when the liability of the defendants is joint.”)

Even though Defendants do not dispute liability, the parties have not briefed how a default judgment against Defendant Singh could affect Defendant Eagle Tranz. See generally Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474 (Table), 1988 WL 93305, at *3 (6th Cir. 1988) (explaining that entering a final decree against one defendant on the merits while the other defendants remained in the case could result in inconsistent verdicts) (citing Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (1872)). In absence of any briefing, the Court declines to recommend a default judgment against only Defendant Singh.

In multi-defendant cases where default is entered against a single defendant “the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants.” Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474, at *3 (6th Cir. 1988). The Court in Kimberly noted that entering a final decree against one defendant on the merits while other defendants remained in the case could result in inconsistent verdicts.

The Sixth Circuit has put forth that, in a multi-defendant case where default is entered against a single defendant, "the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants." Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474, at *3 (6th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). If the plaintiff then loses on the merits, the complaint should be dismissed against both defaulting and non-defaulting defendants.