Peterson v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 49

ORDER Granting 47 MOTION for Order DETERMINING AMOUNT OF DAMAGES filed by Ronnie Peterson and Entering Final DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff against Devon Payton. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONNIE PETERSON,
Case No. 10-14403
Plaintiff,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
DEVON PAYTON,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN
WHALEN

Defendant.
/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
[47] AND ENTERING FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, then a Detroit police officer, violated
Plaintiff’s rights through the use of excessive force. On May 16, 2013, the Court
entered an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against
Defendant [42] due to Defendant’s failure to defend the action and to comply with
the Court’s prior order of sanctions.1 The Court granted Defendant thirty days to
obtain counsel and reopen the case, but he did not do so.

1

The order did not set an amount of damages, and thus did not constitute an entry
of final default judgment. Dassault Systemes, S.A. v. Childress, 663 F.3d 832,
839–40 (6th Cir. 2011).
1

On July 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen Case to Determine
Amount of Damages [43]. On August 1, 2013, the Court issued an Order for
Defendant to Show Cause Why Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Should Not Be
Granted [44]. Defendant did not respond. The Court entered an Order Granting
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen [45] on August 23, 2013. Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Order Determining Amount of Damages [47] on April 15, 2014.2
It is within the Court’s discretion to determine the amount of damages in
default judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing. Vesligaj v. Peterson, 331
Fed. App’x 351, 355 (6th Cir. May 11, 2009) (unpublished) (citing Ortiz-Gonzalez
v. Fonovisa, 277 F.3d 59, 63 (1st Cir. 2002)).

The Court has reviewed the

evidence of damages submitted by Plaintiff as exhibits to his Motion for Order
Determining Amount of Damages [47]. The Court deems this evidence sufficient
to support Plaintiff’s requested award of $150,000. Plaintiff also requests an
award of “attorney fees as provided by law.” Since Plaintiff cites no law and
provides no evidence in connection with his request for attorney fees, the Court
will not award them at this time. Accordingly,

2

Plaintiff filed the motion in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause Why
the Case Should Not Be Closed for Lack of Progress [46]. Plaintiff filed a formal
Response to the Order to Show Cause [48] on April 23, 2014.
2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Amount of Damages
[47] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that default judgment is entered against
Defendant Payton in the amount of $150,000.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

3