McIntyre et al v. Ogemaw County Board of Commissioners et al

Filing 80

ORDER Granting 75 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (Sian, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
STACY MCINTYRE, et al.
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-cv-12214

v

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

OGEMAW COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
On June 18, 2015 Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of all female inmates
of the Ogemaw County Jail who participated in a certain Job Work program (the “Work
Program”), or elected not to participate in the Work Program due to fears of constitutional
violations related to the program. See ECF No. 1. The Defendants identified by Plaintiff were
Ogemaw County Board of Commissioners (“OCBC”), Howie S. Hanft, and James Raymond
Gustafson. Id.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 18, 2015, alleging that

Gustafson, a former employee of the Ogemaw County Sheriff Department, assaulted, battered
and sexually harassed female inmates who were incarcerated at the Ogemaw County Jail and
involved in the Work Program. See Am. Compl, ECF No. 13. Plaintiffs alleged five counts
arising from Defendants’ conduct: (1) Deprivation of civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983; (2) Gross negligence; (3) Assault and battery; (4) Invasion of privacy; and (5) Negligent
and Intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. Plaintiffs have since disclaimed their class
action request, and have proceeded only on their individual claims.
I.

Defendant Gustafson was served on July 14, 2015, but did not file an answer. See ECF
No. 14. Accordingly, on August 19, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a request for default as to Defendant
Gustafson. See ECF No. 15. In compliance with Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 55.1,
Plaintiff’s request properly included the manner of service and location where the Defendant was
served.

Id. Accordingly, on August 20, 2016 the clerk entered default as to Defendant

Gustafson. See ECF No. 16. The clerk certified that Defendant Gustafson was served with the
notice of default. Id.
On September 15, 2016 summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendants OCBC
and Hanft with regard to a number of Plaintiffs facing procedural bars. See ECF No. 60. On
November 4, 216 the parties notified that Court that they had reached a settlement with the nondefaulted Defendants. A stipulated order of dismissal as to the non-defaulted Defendants was
entered on January 30, 2017. See ECF No. 74.
On February 9, 2017 Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment as to Defendant
Gustafson pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). See ECF No. 75. In their
motion, Plaintiffs ask that damages be awarded in the following amounts:
Stacy McIntyre:

$50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

Candy Olstrom:

$50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

Heather Miles:

$50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

Laurie Bickel

$50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

Misty Lynn Edwards:

$50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

Krystal Waterman-Rush:

$50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

Tina Bahr:

$25,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

Tammy McElroy:

$25,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

-2-

April Morgan:

$25,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

Tina Terkawi:

$25,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary

See ECF No. 75. In sum, Plaintiffs seek $400,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in
exemplary damages.

Pursuant to a Court order, on March 24, 2017 Plaintiffs filed a

supplemental brief, clarifying their legal theories and setting forth detailed factual allegations as
to each individual plaintiff. See ECF No. 79. They have attached deposition testimony from each
plaintiff. Id.
II.
A judgment by default may be entered against a defendant who has not pleaded or
otherwise defended against an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Before a default judgment may
enter, a party first must obtain a default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Once a default is entered, the
defendants are considered to have admitted the well pleaded allegations in the complaint,
including jurisdiction. Ford Motor Company v. Cross, 441 F.Supp.2d 837, 845 (E. D. Mich.
2006) (citing Visioneering Construction v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty, 661 F.2d 119, 124 (6th
Cir. 1981)). Here, Plaintiffs properly obtained a default against Defendant Gustafson, and the
clerk certified that a notice of default was served on Defendant Gustafson.
After a party secures the entry of default, the party may apply for a default judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). In reviewing an application for a default judgment, “[t]he court may
conduct hearings or make referrals … when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A)
conduct an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any
allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). While the
well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true when a defendant is in default,
damages are not. Ford Motor Company, 441 F.Supp.2d at 848 (citing Thomson v. Wooster, 114

-3-

U.S. 104 (1885)). The Court must determine the propriety and amount of the default judgment
where the damages sought are not for a sum certain. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). “Ordinarily, the
District Court must hold an evidentiary proceeding in which the defendant has the opportunity to
contest the amount [of damages].” Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110 (6th Cir. 1995)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). However, Rule 55 gives the court the discretion to
determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, or whether to rely on detailed affidavits
or documentary evidence to determine damages. Stephenson v. El Batrawi, 524 F.3d 907, 916
(8th Cir. 2008).
Based on the deposition transcripts submitted by Plaintiffs and the specific facts set forth
in the supplemental brief, Plaintiffs have stated claims that Defendant Gustafson deprived them
of their constitutional rights pursuant to § 1983 (Count I) and committed assault and battery
(Count III). The damages requested by Plaintiffs are reasonable. There is no need for an
evidentiary hearing. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment will be granted, and a default
judgment will be entered against Defendant Gustafson.
III.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against
Defendant Gustafson, ECF No. 75, is GRANTED. The judgment will enter separately.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: April 4, 2017

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on April 4, 2017.
s/Michael A. Sian
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager

-4-