The Maids International, Inc . v. Maids on Call, LLC et al
Filing
59
ORDER AND JUDGMENT regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment by consent and award of attorney's fees and costs 57 is granted. Judgment is entered against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $59,500.00; and plaintiff is awarded $2,060.00 in attorney fees and costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Confession of Judgment.Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (CCB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
THE MAIDS INTERNATIONAL, INC ., a
Nebraska corporation;
8:17CV208
Plaintiff,
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
vs.
MAIDS ON CALL, LLC, a Connecticut
limited liability company; MAIDS ON
CALL II, LLC, a Massachusetts limited
liability company; TIMOTHY SCUSSEL,
an individual; MARYANNE SCUSSEL,
an individual; SARA ROCK, an
individual; STACEY SCUSSEL, an
individual; and S.A.G. MANAGEMENT,
INC.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment by
Consent and Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs, ECF No. 57. Plaintiff seeks entry of
judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $59,500.00,
exclusive of interest, due to Defendants’ failure to make the required payments under
the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the parties. Plaintiff also moves the
Court for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $2,060.00 in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Confession of Judgment
executed by Defendants.
On November 20, 2018, and in accordance with the parties’ settlement
agreement, Defendants Maids On Call, LLC, Maids On Call II, LLC, Timothy Scussel,
Maryann Scussel, Sara Rock, Stacey Garon and S.A.G. Management, Inc. entered into
a Confession of Judgment and Warrant of Attorney (the “Confession of Judgment”).
ECF No. 58-1. Under the Consent of Judgment, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff
$69,500.00 in installments. Defendants made an initial payment of $10,000.00, but
failed to make additional payments as agreed in the parties’ settlement agreement.
Plaintiff made demand on Defendants on December 15, 2017, and January 15, 2017.
ECF Nos. 58-3, 58-4. Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s demand and have
failed to make any additional settlement payments to Plaintiff. Accordingly, under the
express terms of the Consent of Judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to immediate
enforcement of the Confession of Judgment and to obtain a judgment against
Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $59,500.00, plus interest, attorney’s
fees and costs.
Pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 58-2,
Defendants agreed to pay all attorney’s fees and costs incurred related to enforcement
of the Settlement Agreement and Confession of Judgment. Under paragraphs 2, 3 and
5 of the Confession of Judgment, Defendants also agreed to pay attorney’s fees and
costs related to Plaintiff’s filing of the Confession of Judgment and incident to collection
of the judgment entered against Defendants. Plaintiff has incurred $2,060.00 in
attorney’s fees and costs relating to its enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and
filing of the Confession of Judgment. ECF No. 58-5. The Court has reviewed the
request for attorney’s fees and costs and concludes that it is reasonable under the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
2
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment by Consent and Award of
Attorney’s Fees and Costs, ECF No. 57, is granted;
2.
Judgment is entered against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the
amount of $59,500.00; and
3.
Plaintiff is awarded $2,060.00 in attorney’s fees and costs in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Confession of Judgment.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge
3
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?