Estes Express Lines, Inc. v. Carpenter Decorating Company, Inc. et al

Filing 24

DEFAULT JUDGMENT granted in favor of Plaintiff against Carpenter Decorating Company, Inc. Because the well-pleaded allegations and breach-of-contract theory of recovery support the relief sought, default judgment is hereby en tered in favor of Plf in the amount of $187,735.54, plus interest from the date of the Second Amended Complaint, July 17, 2013, at the federal statutory rate until the judgment is satisfied, as well as plf's costs in this matter. The Court declines to award attorney's fees. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 8/22/2013. (cbb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:09-cv-00084-RLV-DSC
ESTES EXPRESS LINES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARPENTER DECORATING
COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Estes Express Lines, Inc.’s Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. 22) and Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 23).
In the wake of several orders by this Court (Docs. 14, 17, 19, 21), Plaintiff has remedied
the numerous defects noted (see, e.g., Doc. 19 at 3–4), and its well-pleaded allegations of fact
support the relief sought (see generally Doc. 22); see also Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U.S. 104,
113 (1885) (stating that a default judgment may be lawfully entered only “according to what is
proper to be decreed upon the statements of the bill, assumed to be true,” and not “as of course
according to the prayer of the bill”).
On or about May 24, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant Carpenter entered into a pricing
agreement with regard to certain future shipments, which was issued by Plaintiff’s pricing
department in Richmond, Virginia, and which incorporated Plaintiff’s “rules tariffs.”1 (Doc. 22 at
2; Doc. 22-1 at 1–2.) Pursuant to this agreement, and between the approximate dates of April 21,
2008, and January 19, 2009, the parties contracted for the transportation of goods via various
bills of lading. Plaintiff transported such goods in accordance with these bills of lading, and the
Plaintiff has dismissed without prejudice the “Doe” defendants, which are other entities or
individuals who may be liable jointly and severally for the shipments alleged. (Doc. 22 at 2.)
1

1

goods were received by the designated consignees. (Id. at 2–3.) Defendant Carpenter has failed
timely to pay the invoices and, pursuant to the rules tariffs, has incurred a number of latepayment charges and related adjustments and fees. (Id. at 3.) The freight charges have
accordingly amounted to $187,735.54, plus accruing interest. (Id. at 3–4.)
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Default
Judgment (Doc. 23) be GRANTED. Because the well-pleaded allegations and breach-ofcontract theory of recovery support the relief sought, default judgment is hereby entered in favor
of Plaintiff in the amount of $187,735.54, plus interest from the date of the Second Amended
Complaint, July 17, 2013, at the federal statutory rate until the judgment is satisfied, as well as
Plaintiff’s costs in this matter. The Court declines to award attorney’s fees.
Signed: August 22, 2013

2