M.I.T., Inc., v. Medcare Express, N. Charleston, LLC et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting the Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Default Judgment; instructing the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Medcare Express N. Charleston in the sum of $115,731.67, and against Defendant Medcare Urge nt Care Center in the sum of $147,231.67, and against Defendant Medcare Express Lexington in the sum of $165,231.67; and, directing the Clerk to terminate all deadlines and motions, and close this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/14/2014. (jah)

IN THE

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF

COURT

FOR THE

GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

M.I.T.,

INC.,

a Georgia Corporation,
Plaintiff,
CV 114-081
v.

MEDCARE EXPRESS, N. CHARLESTON,
LLC, a South Carolina Limited

Liability Company,
and

MEDCARE URGENT CARE CENTER,
W. ASHLEY, LLC, a South

Carolina Limited Liability
Company,
and

MEDCARE EXPRESS LEXINGTON,
a

LLC,

South Carolina Limited

Liability Company,
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently

for

Default

below,

pending

before

the

Court

(Doc.

9.)

For

Judgment.

is

the

Plaintiff's

reasons

Motion

set

forth

Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.
I.

This

Defendants

dispute

arises

regarding

the

BACKGROUND

from a

sale

contract

and

between

service

of

Plaintiff

medical

and

imaging

(Compl. % 6-10.)

equipment.
selling

and

servicing

the

Plaintiff
imaging

is in the business of

equipment,

and

provide medical services to the general public.
2010,

Radwin S.

Hallaba,

Defendant companies,

M.D.,

who owns

Defendants

(Id. 1 6.)

and manages

the

In

three

spoke with Plaintiff regarding the purchase

of CT Imaging Equipment,

along with service for those machines.

(Id. H 7.)

The present dispute regards contracts entered into by all
three Defendants;
were

entered

the contract terms are identical,

into

on

different

dates.

(Id.

H

though they

8-10.)

Each

contract provided for the purchase of the CT machine and thirtysix months of service for that machine.

$150,000 for Medcare Express,

N.

(Id.)

The machine cost

Charleston and Medcare Urgent

Care Center, but $160,000 for Medcare Express Lexington.
The monthly service fee was $4,500 for each Defendant.

On October

1,

2010,

Plaintiff

quoted Medcare

(Id.)

Express,

Charleston for the purchase and service of the machine.

8.)

In response,

equipment

and

months unpaid.

Medcare Express,

eleven
(Id.)

months

of

N.

(Id.)

(id.

N.
H

Charleston paid for the

service,

leaving

twenty-five

On May 15, 2011, Plaintiff quoted Medcare

Urgent Care Center for the purchase and service of the machine.

(Id. H 9.)

In response, Medcare Urgent Care Center paid for the

equipment and four months of service,

leaving thirty-two months

unpaid.

Plaintiff

(Id.)

On

January 5,

2012,

quoted Medcare

Express Lexington for the purchase and service of

(Id. H 10.)
equipment
leaving

the

machine.

In response, Medcare Express Lexington paid for the
but

has

yet

thirty-six

complaint,

it

to

pay

months

alleges

any

of

unpaid.

that

the

service

(Id.)

Defendants,

on

In

payments,

Plaintiff's

multiple

occasions,

acknowledged their debt under the service agreement via e-mail.

(Id.

H 12.)

event

of

The contracts additionally provided that,

default,

Plaintiff

all Service Obligations
due

under

provided

th[e]

service

Defendants'

may

request.

the

(Compl.,

equipment

Exs.

to

or

otherwise

Subsequently,
June 17, 2014,

Procedure

and

Plaintiff

Defendants,

Plaintiff filed suit

upon

seeking to compel

and quantum meruit.

Defendants waived service on May 6,

answers were due May 26,

plead

2-4.)

all

arbitration and/or for breach of contract
1.)

Agreement

(Id. H 13.)

On March 25, 2014,

(Doc.

this

and accelerate all remaining payments

Agreement."

for

"terminate

in the

2014.

respond

(Doc.

to

3.)

the

2014, and their

Defendants failed to

Complaint.

(Doc.

8.)

Plaintiff filed its Motion for Default Judgment on
asserting that,

55(b),

the

Court

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

should

against Defendants on its claims.

enter

(Doc.

9.)

a

default

judgment

II.

DISCUSSION

w[D]efendant's default does not

in

entering

basis

in

the

defendant
or

to

a

default

judgment.

pleadings

for

a

in itself warrant the court

There

judgment

conclusions

Houston Nat'l Bank,
defendant,

of

law."

515 F.2d 1200, 1206

by his default,

matters

judgment:

(1)

Pitts ex rel.
1356
A.

a

entered

Nishimatsu

sufficient

....

The

[are]

essential

jurisdiction;

Pitts v.

(S.D. Ga.

Constr.

(5th Cir.

Co.

1975).x

v.

A

is only deemed to have admitted the

"plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of

1353,

be

is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded

admit

distinct

must

(2)

in

fact."

Id.

considering

liability;

Seneca Sports,

and

Inc.,

"[T]hree

any
(3)

default

damages."

321 F.

Supp.

2d

amount

in

2004).

Jurisdiction

The

parties

in

this

case

controversy exceeds $75,000.

are

Carolina

Complaint

limited

alleges

liability

and

the

Thus, the Court has subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
The

diverse

§ 1332.

that

the

Defendants

companies.

(Compl.

are

1f

2.)

South

To

determine whether nonresident defendants are subject to personal
jurisdiction
analysis.
1

in

Georgia,

Diamond

Crystal

the

Court

Brands,

must

Inc.

v.

perform
Food

a

two-part

Movers

See Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207

Int'l,

(11th Cir.

1981) (holding Fifth Circuit decisions made on or before September 30, 1981,
are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit).

Inc.,

must

593 F.3d 1249,

decide

1257-58

whether

the

(11th Cir.

exercise

of

2010) .

personal

proper under Georgia's long-arm statute.
must

determine

with the

forum state

Fourteenth
U.S.

310

whether

Amendment.

the

of

to

Columbia

Contractual

v.

of

Nalley

(Ga. Ct. App. 1993) .

the

Second,

the Court

"minimum

contacts"

Int'l

Shoe

Process
Co.

legal arrangements"

in

the

Clause of

the

Washington,

v.

Equipment

jurisdiction of

County,

326

Management

and

as

these,

jurisdiction,
Equip.

Leasing,

are

the

State

or

(Doc.

Georgia.

such

1,

Exs.

which
valid

Ltd.,

432

provide
and

Federal

for

context,

their

jurisdiction."

S.E.2d

673,

675

471 U.S. 462 (1985), that wa variety of

exist through which a

parties

controversies

Id.

the

enforceable.

litigant can consent

to personal jurisdiction and explicitly recognized that

commercial

2-4.)

In fact, the Supreme Court held in Burger

King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,

submit

is

sufficient

are

agreed

provisions

consent

Lightsey

jurisdiction

Id.

satisfy the Due
Id.;

parties

Repair Agreements

advance

to

the Court

(1945).

Here,

Courts

there

First,

at

frequently stipulate
for

472

resolution

n.14

within

(internal

"in the

in advance
a

to

particular

quotation

marks

omitted).

Thus,

this

Court

properly

has

both

personal

and

subject matter jurisdiction over the parties.
B. Liability

Based

record,

on

Plaintiff's

and

the

evidence

against Defendants

in

evidence

the

and

that

pleadings

submitted

by

and Owner of M.I.T.,

Under

there

for

the

is

a

substantive,

sufficient

relief

seeks.2

The

as

Plaintiff

Plaintiff
liability

includes

the

to

"(1)
has

broken."

Norton

306

(Ga.

Defendants

the
v.

service.

(Doc.

1,

arbitration,

litigation.
established a
other claims.

(Doc.
claim

breach
1.)
for

A Car

Here,

terms

of

breach

of

the

Sys. ,

contract

(3)

to the

contract

Inc.,

705

being
S.E.2d

the complaint asserts that
the

contracts

and

service

the contracts required Defendants to

of

2-4.)

each

By

sets forth
of

a

resultant damages

thirty-six

Exs.

Plaintiff's Complaint

Rent

price

into

(2)

for

complain about

2010) .

the

purchase

divided

2

to

Specifically,

the

elements

Budget

Ct. App.

$162,000

compel

the

right

breached

agreements.

pay

law,

breach and the

party who

President

Inc.

Georgia

claim are:

(1)

the

cause of action for breach of contract

governing contracts and the affidavit of Rick Player,

305,

in

the Court is satisfied that the well-pleaded allegations

of the Complaint state a

basis

allegations

contract,

Because
breach of

the

CT

machine

virtue

(2)

pay

installments

monthly

for

of

several claims quantum

Court

contract,

is
it

and

their

an application to

meruit,

and

satisfied

that

need

not

default,

for

costs

Plaintiff

address

of
has

Plaintiff's

Defendants

have

admitted

that

they

have

not

maintained

monthly payments in accordance with the contract.

the

Court finds

the

complaint

damages

that,

and

resulting

based on

record

from

Accordingly,

the well-pleaded allegations

evidence,

their

the

Defendants

breach of

the

are

liable

purchase

in
for

contracts

and service agreements.
C.

Damages

Notwithstanding the propriety of default
Defendants,

it

remains

incumbent

on

judgment against

Plaintiff

to

prove

its

damages.

"While well-pleaded facts in the complaint are deemed

admitted,

plaintiffs'

allegations

relating

to

damages are not admitted by virtue of default;

must

determine

Whitney Nat'l
4702916,

at

*3

both
Bank

there

is

a

see

" [a]

Inc.

amount

Flying

Ala.

legitimate

Anheuser Busch,

2003);

v.

(S.D.

judgment context,

the

4,

2011).

No.

of

damages."

11-0249,

Even

basis

v.

for

Philpot,

any damage

2011

in the

the

award

317 F.3d 1264,

default

that

enters."

(11th Cir.

(explaining that

judgment only if

for

it

WL

Movement Against Racism &

(11th Cir. 1985)

basis

1266

of

the court

court has an obligation to assure

awarded on default

reflects

amount

rather,

character

LLC,

also Adolph Coors Co. v.

may be

adequately

Tuna,

Oct.

the Klan, 777 F.2d 1538, 1544
damages

and

the

the

award).

the

record

However,

a

judicial determination of damages is unnecessary where the claim
is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be

made

certain.

1353,

1364 n.27

F.3d 1225,

1231

Here,

of

See

the

(11th Cir.
(11th Cir.

Plaintiff

contracts

purchase

Chudasama

of

has

at

(Doc.

Charleston

following
Urgent

Center

well

Exs.

thirty-two

Court

123

F.3d

v. Smyth,

with

contract

as

a

2-4.)

420

thirty-six
As

months,

but

above,

Medcare

failed

to

but

totaling

failed

the

service
each

Express

pay

$112,500.00.

payments,

months,

for

month

discussed

totaling

four

documentation

provided

service agreement.

months,

made

the

Each

eleven

twenty-five

Care

following

paid

Corp.,

see also S.E.C.

provided

Defendant has breached the

N.

Motor

2005).

as

1,

Mazda

1997);

issue.

equipment,

agreement.

v.

the

Medcare
to

$144,000.00.

pay

the

Finally,

Medcare Express Lexington has not made a single payment,

though

service was provided, equaling $162,000.00 in damages.
Plaintiff also requests attorney's fees, as provided for in
the

contracts.

Georgia

law

allows

for

the

collection

of

litigation expenses where "the defendant has acted in bad faith,

has

been

stubbornly

unnecessary

trouble

September 29,

regarding

2014,

any

litigious,
and

affidavit

(Doc.

11.)

has

expense[.]"

caused

O.C.G.A.

the
§

plaintiff

13-6-11.

On

this Court requested detailed documentation

attorney's

counsel for Plaintiff.
an

or

as

well

In

these

fees

(Doc.
as

incurred

10.)

invoices

records,

Mr.
8

by

Robert

In response,
and

billing

Lowe

Mr.

J.

Lowe filed

account

asserts

Lowe,

that

records.

he

spent

36.05

hours

Plaintiff

on

paid

$11,215.00.

the

$400

(Doc.

"The

matter,

in

11,

starting

at

filing

Ex.

$300.00

fees

per

and

hour,

other

and

costs,

that

totaling

1.)

point

for

determining

the

amount

of

a

reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate."
Wrap

It

Up,

(quotations

Inc.,

548

omitted)

F.3d

(noting

1348,

that

1350

courts

(11th

may

Bivins v.
Cir.

2008)

consider

twelve

factors in determining the reasonableness of hours and rates3) .
The product of these two figures is the

calculating the lodestar,

"lodestar."

F.2d 1292,

151 F. Supp.

1302

(11th Cir.

2d 1364,

After

the Court may then consider whether it

should be adjusted upwards or downwards.
836

Id.

1369

1988);

(N.D. Ga.

Norman v. Hous.
Lambert v.

2000).

Auth.,

Fulton Cnty.,

"The fee applicant

bears the burden of establishing entitlement and documenting the
appropriate hours and hourly rates."

3

The

twelve

factors

are:

(1)

the

Norman,

time

and

83 6 F.2d at 13 03.

labor

required;

(2)

the

novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform
the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney
due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is
fixed or contingent;
(7) time limitations imposed by the client or the
circumstances;

(8)

the

amount

involved

and

the

results

obtained;

(9)

the

experience,
reputation,
and
ability
of
the
attorneys;
(10)
the
"undesirability" of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional

relationship with the client;
F.3d at

1350

n.2.

and (12)

awards in similar cases.

Bivins,

548

i.

Reasonable Hourly Rate

"A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in

the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of
reasonably comparable skills,
at 1299.

The "going rate"

experience,

and reputation."

Id.

in the community is the most critical

factor in setting the fee rate.

Martin v. Univ.

F.2d 604, 610 (11th Cir. 1990).

The relevant legal community is

the district in which the court sits.
Supp.
Air

1022,

1027 n.l
944

Force,

Court

is

(N.D. Ala.
804,

F.2d

itself

community,

it

considered

may

independent judgment.

(11th

an

consult

Knight v. Alabama,

1993)

808

Cir.

own

911

824 F.

(citing Turner v. Sec'y of

expert

its

of S. Ala.,

on

1991)).

hourly

experience

Because

rates

in

the

in

the

forming

an

Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303.

Plaintiff seeks an hourly rate of $300.00 per hour.

This

Court has previously approved $250.00 per hour as a reasonable
billing

rate

Consumer

Nov.

171

6,

Law

in

the

Group

2012);

Ruben

Doc.

Chevrolet,

6, 2009).

et

al. ,

Johnson v.

(S.D. Ga. Apr.

l:09-cv-021,

Augusta
No.

(S.D.

Inc.,

No.

Ga.

market.

l:ll-cv-187,

YKK Am.,

29, 2010);
39

legal

Inc.,

No.

See
Doc.

91

Guzman
(S.D.

3:07-cv-048,

v.
Ga.

Doc.

Ingram v. Kellogg's Sales Co., No.
Feb.

24,

l:06-cv-195,

2010);
Doc.

Salazar v.
86

(S.D.

Milton

Ga.

Mar.

Upon consideration of the circumstances of this case,

the

relevant

legal

and

recognizing

market,

that

two

counsel's
years

10

have

experience
passed

and expertise,

since

the

above

mentioned cases,
hour for Mr.

the billing rate will be set at $275.00 per

Lowe.

ii.

Hours Reasonably Expended

While exercising proper "billing judgment,"

exclude

excessive,

redundant,

from fee applications.
(11th

Cir.

1999).

unreasonable

reputation,

"[A]

to

otherwise

unnecessary

ACLU of Ga. v. Barnes,

"[H]ours

bill

or

a

excluded

client"

are

without

or experience of counsel.

attorneys must

hours

168 F.3d 423,

those

that

reference

Norman,

would

to the

428
be

skill,

836 F.2d at 1301.

lawyer may not be compensated for hours spent on activities

for which he would not bill a client of means who was seriously
intent on vindicating similar rights,

recognizing

that

in the

private sector the economically rational person engages in some
cost benefit analysis."

Plaintiff

with one

has

Id.

met

exception.

its

Two

burden with regard to

entries

reflect

time

hours

Mr.

billed

Lowe

spent

addressing this Court's September 29, 2014 Order (Doc. 10).

award

in

this

case

is

only

for

time

spent

on

the

The

underlying

complaint and default judgment, not the September 29, 2014 Order
requiring
Thus,

supplemental

these

Accordingly,

time

the

$275.00/hour at
the filing fees,

information

entries

Court

will

finds

33.8 hours,

be

the

or

regarding
excluded

lodestar

$9,295.00.

in

attorney's
from

the

this

case

fees.
award.

to

be

Taking into account

the total award of fees and costs is $9,695.00,
11

which

shall

be

divided

equally

among

the

three

co-defendants,

each being responsible for $3,231.67.

IV.

Based

judgment

upon

(doc.

the

9)

CONCLUSION

foregoing,

Plaintiff's

is GRANTED.

motion

for

default

The Clerk is instructed to enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the sum
of

$115,731.67

from

Medcare

Express

from

Urgent

Medcare
Care

Lexington.

The

deadlines and motions,

ORDER ENTERED
October,

Express

Center,

Clerk

N.

and

is

Charleston,
$165,231.67

DIRECTED

to

$147,231.67
from

Medcare

TERMINATE

all

and CLOSE this case.

at Augusta,

Georgia,

this

li*^ day of

2014.

Honorable J.

Randal

Hall

ilnifeea States District Judge
Southern District of Georgia

12