SUPER 8 WORLDWIDE, INC. v. ROSHNI HOSPITALITY, L.L.C. et al
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION & JUDGMENT for the sum of $69,829.28 in favor of pltf. SUPER 8 WORLDWIDE, INC. and against defts. ROSHNI HOSPITALITY L.L.C. and YASWANT PATEL. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 2/18/2014. (nr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SUPER 8 WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Civil Action No. 12-00048 (ES)
ROSHNI HOSPITALITY, L.L.C.; and
OPINION & ORDER
SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
The instant Opinion and Order amends the Court’s prior Order in this action. (D.E. No.
10). This action comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Super 8 Worldwide, Inc.
(“SWI”) for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), and the
Court, having considered Plaintiff’s submissions, and it appearing that:
Plaintiff commenced this civil action on January 3, 2012. (D.E. No. 1).
Defendant Yaswant Patel was served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint
on January 11, 2012. (D.E. No. 4).
Defendant Roshni Hospitality, L.L.C. was served with a copy of the Summons and
Complaint on February 24, 2012. (D.E. No. 5).
The time for answering the Complaint has expired, and Defendants have neither
been granted an extension of time within which to answer, nor interposed an answer
or otherwise responded to the Complaint.
On June 15, 2012, SWI sent the Clerk of Court a letter requesting that default be
entered against Roshni Hospitality, L.L.C. and Yaswant Patel. (D.E. No. 8).
On June 21, 2012, the Clerk of Court entered default as to these Defendants. (D.E.
dated June 21, 2013)
On July 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking default judgment. (D.E.
Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of the motion for default judgment and
related documentation. (See id.).
On March 26, 2013, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in this case granting, in
part, SWI’s motion seeking default judgment. However, the Court ordered SWI to
submit supplemental briefing regarding certain damages SWI sought: “actual
damages” and attorneys’ fees. (D.E. No. 10).
On April 9, 2013, SWI submitted supplemental briefing supporting its argument for
actual damages in the amount of $21,929.20 and attached proof of attorneys’ fees
and costs in the amount of $8,005.06. (D.E. No. 11).
To date, Defendants have not opposed SWI’s motion for default judgment. Thus,
the Court accepts the allegations of the Complaint as true and admitted by the
Defendants. See Knights Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Gauri Shivam LLC, No. 10-5895,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77650, at *6 (D.N.J. July 18, 2011). For that reason, the
Court finds that SWI’s allegations establish that the Defendants breached the
franchise agreement with Plaintiff.
Therefore, this Court concludes that an entry of default judgment against the
Defendants is warranted for the following two reasons.
First, Defendants are
culpable because they have not proffered a meritorious defense in response to
Plaintiff’s claims. See Surdi v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 08-225, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 71738, at *4-5 (D.N.J. Sept.8, 2008) (stating that “[defendants] are
presumed culpable where they have failed to answer, move or otherwise respond”).
Second, Plaintiff has suffered economic loss as a result of the Defendants’ failure to
respond, and will continue to suffer if default judgment is not granted.
Accordingly, IT IS on this 18th day of February, 2014,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is GRANTED, and it is
ORDERED that judgment is hereby entered against Roshni Hospitality, L.L.C., and
Yaswant Patel in favor of SWI in the total amount of $69,829.28.
The total amount of
$69,829.28 is comprised of the following:
1. $34,859.07 for recurring fees and interest up to July 9, 2012;
2. $5,035.95 for interest on the amount of recurring fees calculated at the legal rate of
1.5% per month from July 9, 2012 through February 18, 2014, using simple interest
rather than compound interest;
3. $21,929.20 for actual damages; and
4. $8,005.06 for attorneys’ fees and costs; and it is further
ORDERED that beyond the date of this Final Judgment, post-judgment interest with
respect to the total amount of this Final Judgment will continue to accrue at that rate allowed by
law until the Judgment is paid in full; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this matter.
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.
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?