Berkley Regional Insurance Company v. James T. Redding, Inc. d/b/a JTR, Inc. et al

Filing 17

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 11 MOTION for Default Judgment as to All Defendants filed by Berkley Regional Insurance Company Signed by: Judge Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan Objections to R&R due by 10/21/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan on 10/3/2013. (c/m 10/3/2013 aos, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[e-mail]

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

October 3, 2013
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Re:

Berkley Regional Insurance Co. v. James T. Redding, Inc., d/b/a JTR, Inc., et al.
Case No. ELH-12-2578

Dear Judge Hollander:
This case was referred to me for a report and recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default Judgment (ECF No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that (1)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment be
denied without prejudice to renewal and (2) the Court grant leave to Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint with the specific damages it actually seeks.
In its Complaint, Plaintiff demands damages “of at least $1,055,390.70.” (ECF No. 1 ¶
37). In its Motion for Default Judgment, however, Plaintiff seeks damages of $2,825,045.60,
nearly $1.8 million more than the amount demanded in the Complaint. Because Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(c) provides that a “default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what
is demanded in the pleadings,” I requested that the Plaintiff provide the Court with any authority
supporting its position that it is entitled to a default judgment with damages so far in excess of
what was demanded in the Complaint. (ECF No. 15).
Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 16) arguing that
because Defendants “were on notice that [Plaintiff’s] . . . damages were ongoing and continuing
in nature,” Plaintiff may seek damages in excess of those demanded in the Complaint. (ECF No.
16 at 6). Plaintiff has not submitted any authority supporting its position that damages awarded
in a default judgment may exceed the amount demanded in the complaint by more than 150%.
In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that “if the Court is not inclined to award damages in excess
of $1,055,390.70,” it be permitted to withdraw its Motion for Default Judgment and file and
serve an Amended Complaint on Defendants James Redding and Kimberly Redding1 pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Accordingly, I recommend that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 11)
and Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 16) be denied without prejudice to
renewal. I also recommend that Plaintiff be granted leave of Court to file and serve an Amended
Complaint as to Defendants James Redding and Kimberly Redding within a time period
1

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy as to Defendant James T.
Redding, Inc. d/b/a JTR, Inc., but noted that the remaining defendants have not filed for
bankruptcy. (ECF No. 13).

established by the Court. The Amended Complaint should reflect the damages Plaintiff will
actually seek in the event that Defendants are again found in default.
If the Court disagrees with my recommendation, I will promptly file a report and
recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment recommending that Plaintiff’s
Motion be granted as to all counts, but that damages be limited to what was demanded in the
Complaint.
The parties have fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to this Report and
Recommendation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Local Rule 301.5.b. I also direct that the
Clerk mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to Defendants James Redding and
Kimberly Redding at the addresses listed on the Complaint (ECF No. 1).

Sincerely yours,
/s/
Timothy J. Sullivan
United States Magistrate Judge

2