Rentrak Corporation v. Flickers LP et al

Filing 8

DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Rentrak Corporation against BBV-GP Inc, Flickers LP in the amount of $23,147.39; in favor of Rentrak Corporation against BBV-GP Inc, Flickers II LP in the amount of $33,111.01; in favor of Rentrak Corporation ag ainst BBV-GP Inc, Flickers III LP in the amount of $50,265.00; in favor of Rentrak Corporation against BBV Holdings LLC, Flickers V LLC in the amount of $6,943.92; in favor of Rentrak Corporation against BBV Holdings LLC, KJS West Memphis L LC in the amount of $4,201.92; in favor of Rentrak Corporation against BBV-GP II Inc, New York Video Ltd in the amount of $15,096.34; in favor of Rentrak Corporation against BBV-GP II Inc, New England Video Ltd in the amount of $26,408 .38; in favor of Rentrak Corporation against BBV Holdings LLC, BBV-GP Inc, Flickers II LP, Flickers III LP, Flickers LP, Flickers V LLC, KJS West Memphis LLC in the amount of $42,736.65 for presenting checks to Plaintiff that were returned for i nsufficient funds; in favor of Rentrak Corporation against BBV-GP II Inc, New England Video Ltd, New York Video Ltd in the amount of $70,011.48 for presenting checks to Plaintiff that were returned for insufficient funds. Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest at 0.19% on the above amounts under 28 U.S.C. Section 1961. The Court grants in part & denies in part, as stated herein, 7 MOTION for Default Judgment against All Defendants filed by Rentrak Corporation. Plaintiff's request for pre-judgment interest is denied. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees & costs is denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 7/18/2011. (jct)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION RENTRAK CORPORATION v. PLAINTIFF 3:11CV00067-BRW FLICKERS, LP; FLICKERS II, LP; FLICKERS III, LP; FLICKERS V, LLC; KJS WEST MEMPHIS, LLC; BBV HOLDINGS, LLC, as Guarantor; BBV-GP, INC., as Guarantor; NEW ENGLAND VIDEO, LTD; NEW YORK VIDEOS, LTD; and BBV-GP II, INC., as Guarantor DEFENDANTS DEFAULT JUDGMENT Pending is Plaintiff’s second Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 7). As explained below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. On April 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendants, alleging breach of contract.1 Despite being properly served, Defendants failed to respond to the Complaint. On May 13, 2011, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants.2 Plaintiff’s first Motion for Default Judgment3 was denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff was directed to “explain, in plenary detail, how it arrived at the amounts it is requesting in damages.”4 Plaintiff’s second Motion for Default Judgment5 is adequately supported by invoices 1 Doc. No. 1. 2 Doc. No. 4. 3 Doc. No. 5. 4 Doc. No. 6. 5 Doc. No. 7. 1 and account statements detailing the amounts Defendants owe Plaintiff,6 and an affidavit by Plaintiff’s Director of Credit and Legal Services, Lynne Murphy.7 Accepting the factual allegations in the Complaint as true,8 I find that Defendants have failed to make outstanding payments to Plaintiff, have presented checks that were returned for insufficient funds, and have failed to turn over Trust Funds held for Plaintiff’s benefit. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to default judgment against Defendants for the relief requested, as follows: Defendants Flickers and BBV-GP are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $23,147.39. Defendants Flickers II and BBV-GP are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $33,111.01. Defendants Flickers III and BBV-GP are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $50,265.00. Defendants Flickers V and BBV Holdings are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $6,943.92. Defendants KJS West Memphis and BBV Holdings are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $4,201.92. Defendants NY Videos and BBV-GP II are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $15,096.34. Defendants New England Video and BBV-GP II are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $26,408.38. 6 Doc. Nos. 7-5, 7-6, 7-7, 7-8. 7 Doc. No 7-9. 8 Everyday Learning Corp. v. Larson, 242 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2001). 2 Defendants Flickers, Flickers II, Flickers III, Flickers V, KJS West Memphis, BBV-GP, and BBV Holdings are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $42,736.65 for presenting checks to Plaintiff that were returned for insufficient funds. Defendants New York Videos, New England Video, and BBV-GP II are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $70,011.48 for presenting checks to Plaintiff that were returned for insufficient funds. Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest, at the rate of 0.19%, on the above amounts under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Plaintiff also requests pre-judgment interest, which is a matter of state law in diversity cases.9 In Arkansas, damages must be capable of exact determination, both in time and amount, in order for prejudgment interest to be awarded.10 Here, the amounts owed accrued over a period of time, and so Plaintiff’s damages are not—on this record—capable of exact determination as to time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for pre-judgment interest is denied. In addition, Plaintiff states that $10,226.50 has been billed to date in attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff also states that the final amount of attorneys’ fees will be reflected in a motion once the default judgment has been entered. Accordingly, its request for attorneys’ fees and costs is denied without prejudice. IT IS SO ADJUDGED this 18th day of July, 2011. /s/Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 Schwan’s Sales Enterprises, Inc. v. SIG Pack, Inc., 476 F.3d 594, 595 (8th Cir. 2007). 10 Mitcham v. First State Bank of Crossett, Arkansas, 333 Ark. 598, 601–02, 970 S.W.2d 267, 269 (1998). 3

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?