World Fuel Services, Inc. v. SASS CORP et al
ORDER granting 20 Motion for Default Judgment (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 4/27/2017. (DLO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 16-4131(DSD/SER)
World Fuel Services, Inc.,
SASS CORP, a Minnesota
Corporation, Omar Wazwaz, and
Christopher J. Heinze, Esq and Libby Law Office, PA, 855
Rice Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55117, counsel for
No appearance by defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the motion for default
judgment against defendants SASS Corporation and Omar Wazwaz.
Based on a review of the file, record, and proceedings herein,
and for the following reasons, the court grants the motion.
Plaintiff is a Texas corporation, with its principal place
of business located in the State of Florida, specifically located
at 9800 N.W. 41st Street, Suite 400, Miami, FL, 33178.
SASS CORP is a corporation incorporated and existing under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Its principal place of business
Stinson Boulevard, St. Anthony, MN, 55421.
Defendant Omar Wazwaz
is an individual who is domiciled in the State of Minnesota.
Omar Wazwaz is the sole owner and shareholder of SASS CORP.
Minnesota Secretary of State.
Defendant Omar Wazwaz was served
with the Summons and Complaint in this matter on December 20,
On January 10, 2017, counsel for Omar Wazwaz, Steven T.
Grimshaw, contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, and informed Plaintiff’s
counsel that neither Defendant Omar Wazwaz or Defendant SASS CORP
would be filing an Answer to the Complaint in this matter.
than the allowed time to answer has elapsed since Defendants SASS
CORP and Omar Wazwaz were served in this action and Defendants
have failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In consideration of and as an inducement for Plaintiff to
enter into an Assumption Agreement with Defendant SASS CORP,
Defendant Omar Wazwaz personally guaranteed, on April 14, 2014
(“Individual Guaranty”), all of the debts of the previous dealer
under the original Motor Fuel Agreement dated October 26, 2011.
attorney’s fees and all costs and other expenses incurred by
Plaintiff as a result of any such default or in enforcing the
Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendants SASS
CORP and Omar Wazwaz entered into the Assumption Agreement on
Agreement’s Supply Agreement.
On or about March 6, 2015 Defendants SASS CORP and Omar
Wazwaz breached the Supply Agreement and Assumption Agreement by
failing to purchase motor fuel from Plaintiff, failing to pay
Plaintiff for motor fuel already received, and ceasing operations
at the retail gasoline station located at 3803 Stinson Boulevard
in St. Anthony, Minnesota.
In addition, Defendant Omar Wazwaz
breached the Individual Guaranty by failing to pay Plaintiff the
debt owed by Defendant SASS CORP.
Plaintiff suffered damages in
this matter due to Defendants’ actions and inactions for a total
amount of $298,526.55.
Under Minnesota law, a breach of contract claim contains the
following elements: “(1) formation of a contract; (2) performance
by plaintiff of any conditions precedent; (3) a material breach
of the contract by defendant; and (4) damages.”
Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 174 F. Supp.2d 951, 961 (D. Minn. 2000)
(citing Briggs Trans. Co. v. Ranzenberger, 217 N.W.2d 198, 200
The formation of a contract requires an offer,
acceptance, and consideration. See Taxi Connection v. Dakota,
Minnesota & Eastern R.R. Corp., 513 F.3d 823, 826 (8th Cir. 2008)
(citing Commercial Assocs., Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc., 712
N.W.2d 772, 782 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)); see also Cederstrand v.
Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 529-32, 117 N.W.2d 213, 219- 21
(1962). “Consideration is something of value exchanged for a
performance or promise of performance.” In re MJK Clearing, Inc.,
408 F.3d 512, 515 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing E.J. Baehr v. Penn-OTex Oil Corp., 258 Minn. 533, 104 N.W.2d 661, 665 (1960)).
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion for Default
Judgment, and Affidavit in Support of Default Judgment, this
Court finds that Defendants SASS CORP and Omar Wazwaz breached
its contracts with Plaintiff.
A court may enter a default judgment against a party who
“fails to appropriately respond in a timely manner.” See Marshall
v. Baggett, 616 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 55(b)(2).
However, default judgments are generally
Berthelsen v. Kane, 907 F.2d 617, 620 (6th Cir. 1990). The court
has the discretion to enter a default judgment. Belcourt Pub.
Sch. Dist. v. Herman, 786 F.3d 653, 661 (8th Cir. 2015).
judgment such as: whether the defaulting party’s actions were
inadvertent or de minimis; whether the default resulted from bad
faith; the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; the merits
of the plaintiff’s substantive claim; the sufficiency of the
complaint; the amount of the claim; and whether the default was
due to excusable neglect.
Forsythe v. Hales, 255 F.3d 487, 490
852–854 (2d Cir. 1995); Grandbouche v. Clancy, 825 F.2d 1463,
1468 (10th Cir. 1987); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092–1093
(9th Cir. 1980); Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir.
Anilina Fabrique de Colorants v. Aakash Chems., 856 F.2d 873, 879
(7th Cir. 1988).
Applying the standards and factors set forth above, this
Court finds that default judgment is appropriate in this matter.
Plaintiff properly served the Complaint on Defendants SASS CORP
and Omar Wazwaz. Defendants’ counsel then informed Plaintiff that
Defendants’ default was not a result of bad
faith on the part of Plaintiff.
A denial of default judgment
would prejudice Plaintiff in that it would be more difficult for
Plaintiff, without the aid of a court order, to collect its
damages from Defendants SASS CORP and Omar Wazwaz.
The merits of
Plaintiff’s claims are supported from the existing record and
there is a well pleaded complaint.
This Court has sufficient
information from the existing record to determine the amount of
damages. Therefore, further inquiry or an evidentiary hearing is
See Taylor v. Ballwin, 859 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th
defendant would file an answer.
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to defendants
SASS CORP and Oscar Wazwaz [ECF No. 20] is granted; and
Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in the amount
Dollars and Fifty-Five Cents ($298,526.55) against defendants
SASS CORP and Omar Wazwaz.
Date: April 27, 2017
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
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?