Day v. Career Building Academy, The et al

Filing 95

ORDER Denying 87 Motion for Default Judgment by Judge Raymond P. Moore on March 18, 2021.(rvill, )

Case 1:18-cv-00837-RM-KMT Document 95 Filed 03/18/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00837-RM-KMT
KAITLYIN DAY, an individual
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CAREER BUILDING ACADEMY, a nonprofit organization,
RICHARD N. JOHNSON, an individual, and
JOY MORALES CRESS, an individual,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (“Motion”)
against Defendant The Career Building Academy (“Academy”), filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(2). (ECF No. 87.) Plaintiff requests default judgment on the issue of liability, with the
issue of damages to be determined as part of the trial against the remaining Defendants. The
Motion was filed after the Clerk entered default. (ECF Nos 69, 70.) For the reasons stated below,
the Motion is denied without prejudice.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

Whether to enter default judgment is committed “to the district court’s sound discretion.”
Olcott v. Del. Flood Co., 327 F.3d 1115, 1124 (10th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). When
exercising that discretion, the Court considers that “[s]trong policies favor resolution of disputes
on their merits.” Ruplinger v. Rains, 946 F.2d 731, 732 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks and

Case 1:18-cv-00837-RM-KMT Document 95 Filed 03/18/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

citation omitted).
Before it may grant a motion for default judgment, the Court must take two steps. First,
the Court has an affirmative duty to ensure its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
and the parties. Williams v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 1986). Then, the
Court should consider whether the well-pleaded allegations of fact—which are admitted by a
defendant upon default—support a judgment on the claims against the defaulting defendant.
Tripodi v. Welch, 810 F.3d 761, 764 (10th Cir. 2016) (by his default, defendant relieved plaintiff
from having to prove complaint’s factual allegations; the judgment, however, must be supported
by sufficient basis in the pleadings); Villanueva v. Account Discovery Sys., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d
1058, 1066 (D. Colo. 2015).
II.

BACKGROUND
Academy is a non-profit Colorado corporation and Charter School located in Colorado

Springs, Colorado. Defendants Johnson and Cress are allegedly the Chief Executive Officer and
Executive Director, respectively, of the Academy. According to Plaintiff, Defendants hired
nonparty Robert Wilkerson as an instructor at the Academy who proceeded to groom Plaintiff,
then a minor, for a sexual relationship. After Plaintiff reported the sexual relationship, and the
police investigated, Wilkerson pled guilty to felony assault on a minor by one in a position of
trust. Plaintiff alleges Defendants had actual knowledge of Wilkerson’s inappropriate sexual
contact with Plaintiff but failed to act.
Plaintiff’s suit alleges five claims for relief. As relevant here, one claim is directed
against Academy – sexual harassment in violation of Title IX (28 U.S.C. § 1681(a)).

2

Case 1:18-cv-00837-RM-KMT Document 95 Filed 03/18/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

III.

DISCUSSION
The Court finds that the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting default judgment are

satisfied in this case. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over actions raising federal
questions. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Colorado
corporations. See Dennis Garberg & Assocs., Inc. v. Pack-Tech Int’l Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 773
(10th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing [of personal
jurisdiction] if the motion [for default judgment] is decided only on the basis of the parties’
affidavits and other written materials.”).
The Court does not find, however, that Plaintiff has shown the well-pleaded factual
allegations support a judgment on the Title IX claim against the Academy. Here, Plaintiff
summarily asserts that Academy is in default and, therefore, default judgment should enter. But,
Plaintiff fails to set forth the elements of her claim under Title IX or how her well-pleaded
factual allegations or supporting documents, if any, show that they form a cognizable claim
under Title IX. Accordingly, default judgment may not be entered.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

(ECF No. 87) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED this 18th day of March, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3