Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. CM Mattresses, LLC et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 26 Motion for Default Judgment. It is hereby ORDERED that default judgment enter in favor of plaintiff as against CM Mattress, LLC in the amount of $ 113,725.25 for contract damages. Plaintiffshall serve defenda nt with a copy of this Memorandum and Order and the Clerks judgment and file a declaration of service no later than November 30, 2015. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 11/16/2015. (Gong, LiJia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------LEGGETT & PLATT, INC.,

X

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

-againstCM MATTRESS, LLC,

14-CV-3277 (KAM)(RLM)
Defendant.
-------------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Leggett & Platt, Inc., (“plaintiff”)
initially commenced this breach of contract action against CM
Mattress, LLC and The House of the Foaming Case, Inc. on May 27,
2014.

(See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

complaint on May 29, 2014.

Plaintiff filed an amended

(See Am. Compl., ECF No. 5.)

Plaintiff subsequently voluntarily dismissed the claim against
The House of the Foaming Case, Inc.

(See Status Report, dated

June 11, 2015, ECF No. 25; Order Dismissing Parties dated June
11, 2015.)

On July 13, 2015, following a notation of default by

the Clerk of the Court dated September 9, 2014 (Entry of Default,
ECF No. 19), plaintiff moved for default judgment on its breach
of contract claim against CM Mattress, LLC (“defendant”), seeking
damages in the amount of $113,725.25.
No. 26.)

(Mot. for Default J., ECF

Defendant has not submitted any opposition to

plaintiff’s motion, despite receiving notice and having been
provided with an opportunity to do so.

1

(See Certificate of

Service dated July 13, 2015, ECF No. 26-3.)

For the reasons set

forth below, plaintiff’s motion for entry of a default judgment
is granted.
BACKGROUND
Based on the allegations of the amended complaint, the
court accepts the following facts as undisputed.

Plaintiff is a

Missouri corporation with its principal executive offices located
in Carthage, Missouri.

(Am. Compl. ¶ 1.)

Defendant is a New

Jersey limited liability company with its principal place of
business in St. Albans, New York.

(Id. ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff

delivered goods on account to defendant, and defendant accepted
and retained all such goods without objection, but failed to pay
for the goods in accordance with the agreed terms.

(Id. ¶¶ 6-7.)

DISCUSSION
I.

Default Judgment Standard
Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provides that the court may enter judgment against the
defaulting party when a plaintiff moves against an adverse party
who has failed to answer or otherwise appear in the action.
R. Civ. P. 55(b).

Fed.

After the Clerk of the Court has entered

default pursuant to Rule 55(a), defendant's failure to answer or
respond to the complaint constitutes an admission of the wellpleaded factual allegations in the complaint, except for the
claims relating to damages.

See, e.g., Greyhound Exhibitgroup,
2

Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992).
Thus, the party moving for a default judgment must allege
adequate facts to establish liability and entitlement to relief
after an entry of a default.

Id.

Entry of a default, however, does not establish the
extent of damages proximately caused by a defendant’s conduct.
Id. at 158-59.

An inquest by affidavit, without an in-person

hearing, may be conducted as long as the court can ensure “a
basis for the damages specified in the default judgment.”
Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping
Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997)(quoting Fustok v.
ContiCommodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989)).
II.

Liability
“To prevail on a breach of contract claim under New York

law1, a plaintiff must prove ‘(1) a contract; (2) performance of
the contract by one party; (3) breach by the other party; and (4)
damages.’”

Terwilliger v. Terwilliger, 206 F.3d 240, 245-46 (2d

Cir. 2000)(quoting First Investors Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co., 152 F.3d 162, 168 (2d Cir. 1998)).

1

As an initial matter, plaintiff does address the choice of law question
presented by the facts herein. The court, however, “need not embark on a
choice-of-law analysis in the absence of an ‘actual conflict’ between the
applicable rules of . . . [the] relevant jurisdictions.” DeBlasio v. Merrill
Lynch & Co., No. 07-cv-318, 2009 WL 2242605, at *19 n.14 (S.D.N.Y. July 27,
2009)(quoting Fin. One Pub. Co. v. Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc., 414 F.3d
325, 331 (2d Cir. 2005)). Here, the relevant legal principles applicable to
plaintiff’s breach of contract claim are substantially the same in New York,
New Jersey, and Missouri. Consequently, the court applies New York law but
notes that the outcome and analysis would be unchanged if applying New Jersey
or Missouri law.

3

Here, the undisputed allegations in the complaint state
that plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant to supply
goods on account, that it provided such goods, and that defendant
failed to make full payment for the goods plaintiff supplied
pursuant to the contract.

(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6-9.)

Pursuant to the

undisputed allegations, plaintiff then entered into a subsequent
agreement with defendant to pay the principal balance of the
amounts owed in tandem with new orders for goods, but defendant
failed to make any additional orders or to pay the outstanding
principal balance.

(Id.)

The court finds defendant liable for a

breach of its payment obligations under its contract with
plaintiff in light of the undisputed allegations of the existence
of a contract, performance of the contract by plaintiff to supply
goods to defendant, and defendant’s failure to pay for goods
received under the contract.
III. Damages
“While 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.”
158.

Greyhound, 973 F.2d at

The court may conduct a hearing or rely on affidavits and

other documentary evidence provided by the plaintiff.
See Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Co.,
109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Fustok v. Conti
Commodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989)).
4

(“Under Rule 55(b)(2), it [is] not necessary for the District
Court to hold a hearing, as long as it ensure[s] that there [is]
‘a basis for the damages specified in the default judgment.’”).
“Thus, the movant need only show adequate support for the relief
it seeks.”

Kahan v. Chase Bank, No. 10–CV–335, 2012 WL 947423,

at *1 (E.D.N.Y. March 20, 2012).
Where default has been noted, plaintiff’s recovery is
limited to the amount requested in its Motion for Default
Judgment.2

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c); Scala v. Moore McCormack

Lines, Inc., 985 F.2d 680, 683 (2d Cir. 1993).

Having found

defendant liable under the contract it entered into with the
plaintiff, the court proceeds to assess the damages owed by
defendant.
Plaintiff alleges an unpaid balance of $113,725.25 owed
by defendant to plaintiff.

(Mot. Default J. ¶¶ 3.)

Plaintiff

submitted an affidavit by Kim Conkle, who is personally familiar
with records maintained in the ordinary course of business
concerning sales of goods on account by plaintiff, stating that
defendant owes plaintiff a balance of $113,725.25 for goods sold
and delivered on account.

(Aff. Supporting Entry of Default J.,

2

Although plaintiff may be entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest in this
case, plaintiff has not moved for an award of pre- or post-judgment interest.
Additionally, plaintiff has failed to allege the date of the breach of
contract from which prejudgment interest may be calculated. Consequently, the
court declines to award any pre- and post-judgment interest in this case. See
Slige v. Merz, 510 F.3d 157, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2007)(“We now hold, to the extent
it was previously unclear, that the conventional additional demand for ‘such
other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper’ does not
constitute a demand for prejudgment interest.”)

5

filed July 13, 2015, ECF No. 26-1.)

The court therefore finds

the affidavit to provide a sufficient basis for the damages
asserted by plaintiff.

Given that there is no indication that a

hearing would produce further information regarding the extent of
plaintiff’s damages or evidence to the contrary, the court
declines to hold one.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment is granted.

It is hereby ORDERED that default

judgment enter in favor of plaintiff as against CM Mattress, LLC
in the amount of $ 113,725.25 for contract damages.

Plaintiff

shall serve defendant with a copy of this Memorandum and Order
and the Clerk’s judgment and file a declaration of service no
later than November 30, 2015.

The Clerk of Court is directed to

enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

Dated:

November 16, 2015
Brooklyn, New York

__________/s/________________
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge

6