Concentric Methods, LLC v. Cillian Technologies, LLC
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Defendant 12/12/11 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/12/11. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
CONCENTRIC METHODS, LLC
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 11-1130
:
CILLIAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for review in this breach of
contract case is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.
No. 12).
(ECF
The relevant issues have been briefed, and the court
now rules, no hearing deemed necessary.
Local Rule 105.6.
For
the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted in
part and denied in part without prejudice to renewal.
I.
Background
The following facts are alleged in the amended complaint.
Plaintiff Concentric Methods, LLC (“Concentric”) is a government
contractor
that
provides
information
technology,
engineering,
and other support services to the federal government.
Defendant
Cillian Technologies, LLC, which also goes by the name Killian,
LLC (“Killian”), is also a government contractor.
Concentric is
located in Virginia, and Killian is located in Maryland.
On October 22, 2010, the parties entered into a contract.
Killian agreed to provide “certain equipment and services” to
Concentric to satisfy a previously incurred debt of $241,737.71.
(ECF No. 4 ¶ 2).
Apparently Killian only partially performed
its obligations and thus still owes $179,677.33 to Concentric.
Killian
has
acknowledged
this
outstanding
debt,
but
it
has
refused to pay it.
On April 29, 2011, Concentric filed a complaint against
Killian in this court.
(ECF No. 1).
complaint as of right on May 3, 2011.
Concentric amended the
(ECF No. 4).
On June 8,
2011, Concentric served the summons and amended complaint.
Killian
failed
Concentric
to
moved
for
(ECF Nos. 8, 12).
July 8, 2011.
against
respond
within
entry
of
requisite
default
and
time
default
period,
judgment.
The clerk entered default against Killian on
(ECF No. 9).
Killian
the
When
for
Concentric seeks a default judgment
breach
of
contract
in
the
amount
of
entered
and
the
$179,677.33, plus interest.
II.
Motion for Default Judgment
Where
a
default
has
been
previously
complaint does not specify a certain amount of damages, the
court
may
application
enter
and
a
default
notice
to
judgment,
the
upon
defaulting
the
party,
plaintiff’s
pursuant
to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2).
A defendant’s default, however, does not
automatically
the
entitle
plaintiff
to
entry
of
a
default
judgment; rather, that decision is left to the discretion of the
court.
See Dow v. Jones, 232 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (D.Md. 2002).
2
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has a
“strong policy” that “cases be decided on their merits,” id.
(citing United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 453
(4th Cir. 1993)), but default judgment may be appropriate where a
party
is
essentially
unresponsive,
SEC
v.
Lawbaugh,
359
F.Supp.2d 418, 421 (D.Md. 2005) (citing Jackson v. Beech, 636
F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
Here, more than six months have passed since Killian was
served
with
the
amended
complaint,
and
Killian
pleaded nor asserted a defense in response.
has
neither
As a result, the
“adversary process has been halted because of [this] essentially
unresponsive party.”
will
thus
be
Id.
warranted
if
Default judgment against Defendant
the
pleads a breach of contract claim.
amended
complaint
adequately
See Ryan v. Homecomings Fin.
Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001) (explaining that,
although the defendant is deemed to admit every well-pleaded
allegation of the complaint upon entry of default, the court
must nonetheless determine whether those allegations have been
adequately pleaded and thus warrant relief).
The facts set forth in the amended complaint, for which
Concentric provides supporting documentation in its motion for
default judgment, are sufficient to state a breach of contract
claim.
In Maryland, to state a breach of contract claim, a
plaintiff must allege that the defendant owed the plaintiff a
3
contractual
obligation
and
breached that obligation.
Md.
638,
658
(2010).
that
the
defendant
materially
RRC Ne., LLC v. BAA Md., Inc., 413
According
to
the
amended
complaint,
Killian agreed to “furnish and deliver to [Concentric] or its
customer all the supplies and perform all the services set forth
in assigned orders in order to satisfy outstanding debts that it
owed.”
(ECF No. 4 ¶ 7).
Furthermore, the amended complaint
states that Killian “failed to perform the services [and] failed
to furnish . . . supplies to [Concentric] or its customers.”
(Id. ¶ 8).
has
stated
Based on these undisputed allegations, Concentric
a
breach
of
contract
claim
for
which
relief
is
warranted.
The analysis now turns to the issue of damages.
seeks
compensatory
damages
in
the
amount
of
prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest.
Concentric
$179,677.33,
In support of
this request, it submits the affidavit of David Moran (“the
Moran
Affidavit”),
the
chief
financial
officer
of
Corp., which is the parent company to Concentric.
1).
Cape
(ECF No. 12-
According to the Moran Affidavit, Killian “has acknowledged
that it owes money to Concentric.”
(Id. at 1).
The Moran
Affidavit states that the amount owed is $179,677.33.
1-2).
Fox
(Id. at
Furthermore, attached to the Moran Affidavit are two
exhibits, one of which is an email between Jim Vedder, who is
the chief financial officer of Killian, and Moran.
4
(Id. at 6-
8).
That email includes a spreadsheet attachment that itemizes
the
invoices
Concentric.
is
also
of
apparently
(Id. at 8).
$179,677.33.
consistent
within
outstanding
payments
owed
to
Per that spreadsheet, the amount owed
Because
itself
and
the
with
documentary
the
amount
evidence
sought
in
is
the
amended complaint,1 the record supports Concentric’s request for
$179,677.33 in compensatory damages.
As
to
prejudgment
insufficient.
The
interest,
amended
however,
complaint
the
requests
record
prejudgment
interest at the “legal rate from the date of breach.”
4, at 4).2
is
(ECF No.
The motion for default judgment likewise asks for the
“legal rate” of interest, but it asks specifically that interest
be assessed from October 22, 2010.
(ECF No. 12, at 3).
The
record, i.e., the Moran Affidavit, however, is devoid of any
facts
from
which
it
can
be
determined
when
the
breach
(or
1
Concentric may not be awarded more than what it requested
in the amended complaint.
Pursuant to Rule 54(c):
“A default
judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what
is demanded in the pleadings.”
Thus, where a complaint
specifies the amount of damages sought, the plaintiff is limited
to entry of a default judgment in that amount.
“[C]ourts have
generally held that a default judgment cannot award additional
damages . . . because the defendant could not reasonably have
expected that his damages would exceed that amount.” Meindl v.
Genesys Pac. Techs., Inc. (In re Genesys Data Techs., Inc.), 204
F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2000).
2
In Maryland, the legal rate of interest is six percent per
annum.
Mitchell v. Kentmorr Harbour Marina, No. WMN–10–0337,
2011 WL 5826674, at *5 (D.Md. Nov. 17, 2011) (citing Md. Const.
art. III, § 57).
5
breaches)
occurred
of
on
contract
October
prejudgment
request
22,
interest
Concentric’s
occurred,
2010.3
cannot
for
let
be
alone
that
the
Without
more
fairly
awarded.
prejudgment
interest
breach
information,
will
Thus,
be
denied
without prejudice to its right to renew.
Lastly,
an
award
of
post-judgment
interest
need
not
be
specifically granted because a plaintiff is entitled to recover
such interest by operation of law.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)
(“Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil
case recovered in a district court.”).
II.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment will be granted in part and denied in part without
prejudice to renewal.
A separate order will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
3
It is highly unlikely that the breach of contract occurred
on October 22, 2010.
According to the amended complaint, that
date is when the parties entered into the contract. (ECF No. 4
¶¶ 2, 7).
6
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?