Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. 2R, Inc. et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/28/2017. (kh, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL )
2R, INC., et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
filed this lawsuit against defendants 2R, Inc., Donald
K. Cameron, III, David L. DeWolf, and 3D Automotive
arising from 2R’s alleged default on a line-of-credit
loan and the other defendants’ breach of their agreements
to guarantee the note.
Jurisdiction is proper pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity).
This lawsuit is now
before the court on Wells Fargo’s motion for default
judgment against 2R and 3D (doc. no. 18). For the reasons
below, the motion will be granted.
On September 28, 2016, 2R was served the summons and
complaint by certified mail, as evidenced by the return
on service filed with the court (doc. no. 5).
4, 2016, 3D was served the summons and complaint via
certified mail, as evidenced by the return on service
filed with the court (doc. no. 6).
More than 21 days
have passed since 2R and 3D were served with the summons
Neither 2R nor 3D have responded to the
pleading within the time specified by Fed. R. Civ. P.
Wells Fargo applied for entry of default against both
defendants on November 28, 2016, and the clerk of court
entered the requested default against each on December
Also, on November 28, 2016, Wells Fargo filed
the instant motion for default judgment.
In the motion,
the bank requests entry of a judgment in the aggregate
amount of not less than $ 372,016.13, with additional
prejudgment interest from and after September 23, 2016,
post-judgment interest, and such other relief as the
court deems appropriate and just.
The amount sought
includes the principal amount on the defaulted loan, plus
accrued interest, late fees, and attorneys’ fees.
Attached to the motion for default judgment are Wells
Fargo’s loan agreement with 2R, its guarantor agreements
with 3D and others, its security agreements with 2R and
3D, the UCC-1 Financing Statements that it filed to
perfect its security interests in 2R’s and 3D’s property,
and its demand letter to 2R and 3D.
Also attached to the
motion is the declaration of Matthew Norment, a loan
September 7, 2016, the outstanding indebtedness due under
consists, in part, of $ 353,978.66 in outstanding and
Declaration (doc. no. 18-1) at 6.
He further states
that, pursuant to the loan documents, 2R and 3D are
obligated to pay Wells Fargo all costs it incurs in
indebtedness under the loan documents, including but not
limited to attorneys' fees, costs of collection, and
However, he does not provide a figure for
On December 5, 2016, the court ordered that the
parties show cause, if any there be, in writing by
December 19, 2016, as to why the motion for default
judgment should not be granted.
Order (doc. no. 22).
a follow-up notice entered on December 7, 2016 (doc. no.
24), the court informed both defendants that, “if they
fail to respond to the motion within the time allowed,
judgment will be entered against them as requested in the
The December 19th deadline has come and gone,
but 2R and 3D have yet to show cause why judgment should
not be entered against them.
above, both 2R and 3D were served with the summons and
complaint; failed to respond to the 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 not be entered against them.
court is of the opinion that Wells Fargo’s motion for
entry of default judgment should be granted and that
judgment of default as to the amount requested should be
entered against both 2R and 3D.
A judgment will be entered in accordance with this
DONE, this the 28th day of February, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?