Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Thorn Childcare, LLC et al

Filing 21

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 5/24/2011. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THORN CHILDCARE, LLC,
THORN REAL ESTATE, LLC,
and KIMBERLY RANEA THORN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:10cv984-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed this lawsuit
against

defendants

Thorn

Childcare,

LLC,

Thorn

Real

Estate, LLC, and Kimberly Ranea Thorn, asserting various
state claims relating to the alleged failure to pay sums
due pursuant to a promissory note.

Jurisdiction is

proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity).

This

matter is now before the court on the plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment against the defendants in the amount
of $ 188,162.37, plus interest and costs.

The plaintiff perfected service of a summons and
complaint on Kimberly Thorn on December 2, 2010, see
Proof of Service (Doc. No. 5), and on Thorn Childcare and
See Proof of

Thorn Real Estate on December 4, 2010.
Service (Doc. No. 6).
default

judgment

on

It filed the instant motion for
April

22,

2011

(Doc.

No.

13).

Attached to the motion is the affidavit of Mary Jane
Conley, a loan adjuster for the plaintiff.
¶ 1 (Doc. No. 13-1).
2011,

the

total

Conley Aff.

Conley states: “As of March 31,

amount

outstanding

on

the

Note

is

$ 188,162.37, which consists of the $ 163,244.93 initial
deficiency, accrued but unpaid interest in the amount of
$ 4,623.04, and legal fees and expenses in the amount of
$ 20,294.40.”

Id. ¶ 13.

On May 5, the court ordered that “defendants Thorn
Childcare, LLC, Thorn Real Estate, LLC, and Kimberly
Renae Thorn show cause, if any there be, in writing by
May 19, 2011, as to why plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A.’s

motion

for

default

2

judgment

should

not

be

granted.”

Order at 1 (Doc. No. 18) (internal citation

omitted).

The

court

“informed

[them]

that

if

they

fail[ed] to respond within the time allowed, the court
[would]

grant

requested.”

the

motion

as

well

as

the

relief

Id.

The May 19 deadline has come and gone, but the
defendants have yet to show cause why judgment should not
be entered against them.
As detailed in the factual background provided above,
the defendants were served with a copy of the summons and
complaint; failed to respond to the summons and complaint
within the time allowed; and failed to respond timely to
an order of this court to show cause as to why final
judgment

should

Accordingly,

this

not

be

court

is

entered
of

the

against
opinion

them.

that

the

plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment should
be granted and that judgment of default as to the amount
requested should be entered against the defendants.

3

A judgment will be entered in accordance with this
opinion.
DONE, this the 24th day of May, 2011.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE