United States of America v. Rogers
Filing
9
ORDER granting in part 4 Motion for Entry of Default. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, the court hereby grants plaintiff's motion for default judgment as against defendant Rogers. A damages inquest will be held on July 21, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum & Order on defendant and file a declaration of service by July 15, 2011. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 7/14/2011. (Iguina, Carmen)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-againstMARCUS A. ROGERS,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
10-cv-3181(KAM)
Defendant.
-----------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff United States of America (“plaintiff”)
commenced this action seeking payment for the indebtedness of
defendant Marcus A. Rogers (“Rogers” or “defendant”).
(See ECF
No. 1, Complaint, dated 7/7/2010 (“Compl.”) at ¶¶ 3, 7.)
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s unopposed motion for
default judgment against defendant Rogers.
(ECF No. 4, Motion
for Default and Final Judgment, dated 11/24/2010 (“Default
Mot.”) at 1.)
For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment is granted.
The court, however,
will conduct an inquest to determine the appropriate amount of
damages, if any, that should be awarded to plaintiff.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint against Rogers
on July 13, 2010.
(See generally Compl.)
Service of process
was effected on September 30, 2010 at defendant’s residence by
leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with a Jane Doe
occupant.
(ECF No. 3, Affidavit of Service dated 10/1/2010.)
The complaint alleges that between May 4, 1984 and May 10, 1988,
defendant executed promissory notes to secure six loans from
Marine Midland Bank (the “Marine loans”).
(See Compl., Ex. A.)
These six Marine loans were disbursed in the total amount of
$13,000 on February 10, 1987, at an interest rate of 9.00
percent per annum.
(Id.)
The complaint further alleges that
between October 10, 1984 and September 10, 1987, defendant
executed promissory notes to secure four loans from Long Island
University (the “University loans”).
(Id. at Ex. B.)
The loans
totaled $1,600 and were disbursed at an interest rate of 5.00
percent per annum.
(Id.)
Plaintiff attached to the complaint
two Certificates of Indebtedness (“COI”) prepared by the United
States Department of Education as evidence of the debt allegedly
owed by Rogers.
(Id. at Exs. A-B.)
Plaintiff alleges that
“[d]emand has been made upon the defendant for payment of the
indebtedness, and the defendant has neglected and refused to pay
the same.”
(Id. at ¶ 7.)
On November 29, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for
default judgment, alleging that defendant “has not answered [the
complaint], although duly summoned in the manner and for the
length of time prescribed by law.”
(Default Mot. at 1.)
Subsequently, the court requested that plaintiff submit
supporting evidentiary documents referenced in the two COIs to
2
support its request for default judgment and damages.
Order dated 6/1/2011.)
(See
In response, on June 22, 2011, plaintiff
filed a declaration by Alberto Francisco, Loan Analyst for the
United States Department of Education, along with some
supporting documentation regarding the alleged debt.
(See ECF
No. 7, Plaintiff’s Letter, dated 6/22/2011 (“6/22/11 Letter”) at
1; ECF No. 7-1, Declaration of Alberto Francisco (“Francisco
Decl.”); ECF No. 7-2, Exhibits to Francisco Declaration.)
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard for Default Judgment
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have prescribed
procedural steps for entering a default judgment.
Civ. P. 55.
See Fed. R.
The procedure “following a defendant’s failure to
plead or defend as required by the [Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure] begin with the entry of a default by the clerk upon a
plaintiff’s request.”
Cir. 1981).
Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276 (2d
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) states that
“[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief
is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that
failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter
the party’s default.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
“Then, pursuant
to Rule 55(c), the defendant has an opportunity to seek to have
the default set aside.
If that motion is not made or is
unsuccessful, and if no hearing is needed to ascertain damages,
3
judgment by default may be entered by the court . . . .”
Meehan, 652 F.2d at 276.
Although “a party’s default is deemed to constitute a
concession of all well pleaded allegations of liability, it is
not considered an admission of damages.”
Greyhound
Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158
(2d Cir. 1992); see also Gragg v. Int’l Mgmt. Grp. (UK), Inc.,
No. 5:03-CV-904, 2009 WL 1140490, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2009)
(same).
“Damages, which are neither susceptible of mathematical
computation nor liquidated as of the default, usually must be
established by the plaintiff in an evidentiary proceeding in
which the defendant has the opportunity to contest the amount.”
Greyhound, 973 F.2d at 158.
“In determining the award of
damages in a default judgment,” courts will once again look to
Gragg, 2009 WL 1140490, at
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.
*2.
Rule 55 states that “[t]he court may conduct hearings or
make referrals . . . when, to enter or effectuate a 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).
The Second Circuit has held that allegations in the
complaint and the affidavit of plaintiff’s counsel “asserting an
amount of damages sustained by plaintiff . . . [were]
4
insufficient evidence upon which to enter the amount of the
judgment.”
Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183
F.3d 151, 154-55 (2d Cir. 1999).
“‘Even when a default judgment
is warranted based on a party’s failure to defend, the
allegations in the complaint with respect to the amount of the
damages are not deemed true.
The district court must instead
conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the amount of damages
with reasonable certainty.’”
Gragg, 2009 WL 1140490, at *2
(quoting Credit Lyonnais, 183 F.3d at 154-55).
B. Application
As a threshold matter, defendant has not attempted to
defend himself in the present action.
Based on the evidence in
the docket, this court believes that defendant has had
sufficient notice of the present litigation.
On September 30,
2010, a true copy of the summons and complaint was left with a
person of suitable age and discretion at the residence of
defendant.
(See ECF No. 3, Affidavit of Service, dated
10/1/2010 at 1.)
A copy of the summons and complaint was also
mailed to defendant on October 1, 2010.
(Id.)
On November 24,
2010, plaintiff served the instant motion for default judgment
and supporting papers, by post, at the residence of defendant.
(See ECF No. 4-5, Certificate of Service, dated 11/24/2010.)
The court, therefore, finds that defendant has willfully and
deliberately failed to plead or defend its interest in this
5
action.
Accordingly, a default judgment will be entered against
defendant Rogers.
The court finds, however, that plaintiff has provided
insufficient evidence upon which to base an award of damages.
The additional evidentiary documents submitted by plaintiff fail
to provide the interest rates for three of the Marine loans, for
which promissory notes were executed on May 10, 1988, January 9,
1987, and August 18, 1985.
(See Ex. A to Francisco Decl.)
Plaintiff has provided only a summary report of disbursements
for the Marine loans.
(See Ex. B to Francisco Decl.)
Finally,
plaintiff has failed to provide the court with any disbursement
information regarding the University loans, or with any
information regarding payments made by Rogers on the Marine or
University loans.
The court, therefore, finds that plaintiff
has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which the court
can determine damages.
Thus, the court will hold an inquest to
determine the appropriate amount of damages.
See Gragg v. Int’l
Mgmt. Grp. (UK), Inc., 03-CV-904, 2008 WL 2705366, at *2-*3
(N.D.N.Y. July 1, 2008).
/
/
/
/
/
6
III.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the court hereby grants
plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as against defendant.
A
damages inquest will be held on July 21, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.
Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this memorandum and
order on defendant and file a declaration of service by July 15,
2011.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 14, 2011
Brooklyn, New York
/s/
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York
7
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?