United Van Lines, LLC v. Jones

Filing 9

Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding 8 Motion for default judgment against Frank Jones filed by United Van Lines, LLC. The Court finds that the documentary evidence submitted to the Court in support of plaintiff's motion for default judgment is sufficient to determine a sum certain and it is not necessary for the Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to ascertain damages. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in the amount of $6,503.68 for s torage-in-transit charges is Granted. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to defendant at his address of record. The Court will separately publish a Judgment Entry. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 1/22/2013. (M,De)

DOWD, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

United Van Lines LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Frank Jones,
Defendant.

A.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:12 CV 2058

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

Introduction
Defendant Frank Jones (Jones) was served with plaintiff’s complaint to recover

storage-in-transit charges for the sum of $6,503.68. These charges were incurred by plaintiff
because defendant Jones refused to accept delivery of household goods and two cars, which
plaintiff transported to Akron, Ohio under contract with Jones when Jones moved from Los
Angeles, California. Plaintiff stored defendant’s property for approximately six months until
defendant accepted delivery. Defendant paid the transportation charges for the property, but
refused to pay the storage-in-transit charges.

(5:12 CV 2058)
Defendant was served with plaintiff’s complaint, but did not file a responsive pleading and
default was entered on December 13, 2012 (ECF 7). Plaintiff subsequently moved for default
judgment for the amount of the storage-in-transit charges, $6,503.68.1 ECF 8. In support of its
motion, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Tammie Woodruff, supervisor of plaintiff’s Credit
and Collections Department, specifying the unpaid storage-in-transit charges to be $6,503.68.
ECF 8-1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment reflects that the motion was served upon defendant
by regular U.S. mail on December 14, 2012. No response by defendant to plaintiff’s Motion for
Default Judgment has been filed.
B.

Law and Analysis
After a default has been entered pursuant to Rule 55(a), the party seeking relief from a

defaulting party may apply for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b). A default on well-pleaded
allegations establishes defendant’s liability, but plaintiff bears the burden of establishing damages.
Flynn v. People’s Choice Home Loans, Inc., 440 Fed. Appx. 452, 457 (6th Cir. 2011)(citing
Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110 (6th Cir. 1995)).
In order to enter default judgment, the Court must determine the amount of damages. The
Court may determine damages either by holding an evidentiary hearing or may determine the
amount of damages by affidavit and/or other documentary evidence. See Rule 55(b). An
evidentiary hearing is not required by Rule 55(b) if the amount of damages can be determined by

1

Plaintiff has also seeks pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs of this
action. However, no information or affidavit has been provided to the Court to support a
judgment on pre-judgment, post-judgment interest, or costs at this time.
2

(5:12 CV 2058)
computation from the record before the Court. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted the
affidavit of Tammie Woodruff, supervisor of plaintiff’s Credit and Collections Department,
specifying the unpaid storage-in-transit charges to be $6,503.68. ECF 8-1.
C.

Conclusion
The Court finds that the documentary evidence submitted to the Court in support of

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is sufficient to determine a sum certain and it is not
necessary for the Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to ascertain damages. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion for default judgment in the amount of $6,503.68 for storage-in-transit charges is
GRANTED
The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to defendant at his
address of record. The Court will separately publish a Judgment Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 23, 2013
Date

s/ David D. Dowd, Jr.
David D. Dowd, Jr.
U.S. District Judge

3