Delmont Promotions, LLC, et al v. Washington
ORDER denying 17 Motion for Default Judgment. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 7/16/2014. (Edwards, S.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DELMONT PROMOTIONS, LLC,
SEEKIN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
d/b/a B-ROSE PRODUCTIONS
ALGERNOD LANIER WASHINGTON,
This matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs' (collectively "Delmont") motion for
default judgment [DE-17]. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED without
For purposes of ruling on Delmont's motion, the court assumes that the factual
allegations in the complaint are true. Algemod Washington is a popular musician who has
released at least three albums and has been "filling venues" with his performances. Washington
performs under the alias "Plies." Delmont Promotions is an event organizer and promoter.
On August 6, 2008, the parties executed an "Artist Engagement Agreement," in which
Washington agreed to perform at the RBC Center in Raleigh, North Carolina on September 14,
2008. However this show was cancelled due to inclement weather. Subsequently, the parties
entered into a "Revised Artist Engagement Agreement," and the show was rescheduled for
November 8, 2008. Washington cancelled this show, citing a scheduling conflict. At the time
Washington informed Delmont he would not perform, Delmont had expended approximately
$256,867.75 promoting the show. On November 8, 2008, Washington performed in Tampa,
Florida instead, to a sold out show at a venue holding approximately 25,000 people. The RBC
Center in Raleigh has a 20,000 seat capacity and tickets were priced at $50. Delmont therefore
anticipated gross ticket sales of $1,000,000. Prior to Washington's cancellation, TicketMaster
had amassed approximately $30,000 in ticket sales. Delmont originally filed this breach of
contract action on July 13, 2010, but the court dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Delmont filed this action on July 9, 2013 and Washington has
failed to file a responsive pleading or otherwise defend.
To enter a default judgment, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the
claims, personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the complaint must state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Wing Spot Chicken & Waffles, Inc., 920
F. Supp. 2d 659,662,665 (E.D. Va. 2013). Personal jurisdiction requires a showing that the
defendant is subject to general jurisdiction in the forum state under the state's long arm statute,
that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to satisfy due process,
and effective services of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(l)(A); Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326
U.S. 310,316-17 (1945).
The court must also determine whether the factual allegations in the complaint entitle the
plaintiffto relief. Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001). This
requires a showing that the complaint would survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Joe
Hand, 920 F. Supp. 2d at 665. While the court accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations as
true, the '" [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level' and the plaintiff must allege 'enough facts to state a claim to reliefthat is plausible on its
face."' Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599,615 n.26 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Aschcro.ft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider affirmative defenses in the limited
circumstance "where the facts sufficient to rule on an affirmative defense ... clearly appear on
the face ofthe complaint." Goodman v. Praxair, 494 F.3d 458,464 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal
In this case, Delmont fails to explain how the court has personal jurisdiction over
Washington. Although Delmont indicates that Washington was served by certified mail, the
motion needs to explain how service was proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Furthermore, Delmont does not address whether personal jurisdiction over Washington is proper
in this court under either International Shoe or North Carolina's long-arm statute.
In addition, it appears that this breach of contract action is barred by the applicable statute
of limitations. The statute of limitations for breach of contract in North Carolina is three years
and the limitations period begins to run in most circumstances when the breach occurs. N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 1-52; Birtha v. Stonemore, North Carolina, LLC, _N.C. App. _, 727 S.E.2d 1, 8-9
(2012). Here, Delmont alleges Washington breached the contract in November, 2008. This suit
was filed on July 9, 2013, well outside the three-year limitations period. Thus, if Delmont
decides to renew the motion for default judgment, counsel must explain why this action is not
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
The court notes that Delmont originally filed a separate lawsuit against Washington
alleging breach ofthe same contract in 2010. Delmont Promotions v. Maury & Nl, Inc. eta!.,
No. 5:10-CV-279-F, 2012 WL 699531 (E.D.N.C. March 1, 2012). That lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b). If counsel believes the statute of
limitations was tolled during the pendency of that litigation, counsel is free to make that
argument in a renewed motion for default judgment. But the court is not going to undertake this
research project for Delmont.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for default judgment [DE-17] is DENIED without
prejudice to file a renewed motion within sixty days of the date this order is filed. If no motion
(or request for extension of time) is filed by this deadline, this case may be dismissed for failure
This the _Lf_ day of July, 2014.
Senior United States District Judge
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?