WALKER et al v. INNOVATIVE CONCEPT SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/13/2014.(lcckk3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHANEEL WALKER and
GAIL ALSTON,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 12-2046 (CKK)

v.
INNOVATIVE CONCEPT SOLUTIONS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(January 13, 2014)
Chaneel Walker and Gail Alston (“Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint in the above-captioned
action on December 20, 2012, against Defendants Innovative Concept Solutions International,
Inc. (“ICSI”) and Lorraine Thomas (“Thomas”). See Compl., ECF No. [1]. By Order dated May
29, 2013, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against Thomas, leaving only
Plaintiffs’ claims against ICSI. See May 29, 2013, Order, ECF No. [13]. On June 18, 2013, the
Clerk entered default against Defendant ICSI as ICSI had not answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint nor
appeared in court. See Entry of Default, ECF No. [16]. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Default Judgment against ICSI. See ECF No. [17]. In an Order entered July 3, 2013, the
Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment on the basis that
Plaintiffs failed to specify each element of damages, or the monetary amount thereof, that
Plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to recover from ICSI, and failed to include evidentiary support
for its damages claims. See July 3, 2013, Order, ECF No. [18]. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an
Amended Motion for Default Judgment. See ECF No. [19]. On November 27, 2013, the Court

again denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment because Plaintiffs failed
to provide sufficient evidence to prove their entitlement to the amount of monetary damages they
requested and failed to provide the information the Court had requested in its July 2013 Order
regarding Defendant’s corporate status, whether Defendant is in bankruptcy proceedings, and the
correct address for Defendant’s registered agent. See Nov. 27, 2013, Mem. Op. & Order, ECF
Nos. [21] & [22].
In the Court’s Order denying Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment, the
Court gave Plaintiffs until January 6, 2014, to file a revised motion for default judgment
providing the necessary evidentiary support and thoroughly addressing the impact of ICSI’s
corporate status, whether ICSI is in bankruptcy proceedings, and the correct current address for
ICSI’s registered agent. See Nov. 27, 2013, Order. The Court noted that if Plaintiffs did not file
a revised motion for default judgment by January 6, 2014, “this decision will stand and the case
will be dismissed.” Id. Plaintiffs did not file a revised motion for default judgment by January 6,
2014, and, as of this date, the Court still has not received such a motion or a motion for extension
of time to file such a motion.

Consequently, Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient

information from which the Court could enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on their requested
damages award. Accordingly, although judgment as to Defendant’s liability has been entered by
default for Plaintiffs, the Court’s decision denying Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default
Judgment as to damages stands. Furthermore, as Plaintiffs failed to file a revised motion for
default judgment by the January 6, 2014, deadline, this case is DISMISSED for want of
prosecution.
//
//
2

An appropriate Order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3