Orange Lake Country Club Inc et al v. Williams et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 12 Motion for Entry of Default, as amended. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/30/2011. (hcic)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB, INC.,
and OLCC SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC,

Case No. 4:11-CV-01202-RBH

Plaintiffs,
vs.
CHARLES HENRY WILLIAMS d/b/a,
TIMESHARE LEGAL COUNSEL, d/b/a
TIMESHARE COUNSEL, d/b/a
TIMESHARELEGALCOUNSEL.COM, d/b/a
TIMESHARECOUNSEL.COM; GLENDA
WILLIAMS; and JOHN DOES 1--5,

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
OTHER COSTS

Defendants.

THIS MATTER COMES BEFORE THE COURT upon Motion of the Plaintiffs, Orange
Lake Country Club, Inc. and OLCC South Carolina, LLC. (“Plaintiffs”), for an Order, pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 55(b)(2), for an entry of judgment by default in
favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Charles Henry Williams, d/b/a Timeshare Legal
Counsel,

d/b/a

Timeshare

Counsel,

d/b/a

Timesharelegalcounsel.com

d/b/a

Timesharecounsel.com (“Charles Williams”) and Defendant Glenda Williams (Glenda
Williams).
Plaintiffs’ Motion is based upon Plaintiffs’ Motion For Entry of Default Judgment and
Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Other Costs, Amendment1 to Motion For Entry of Default
Judgment and Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Other Costs, the Declaration of Cherie W.
Blackburn In Support of Motion For Entry of Default Judgment and Award of Attorneys’ Fees

1

Plaintiffs have withdrawn their request for actual damages. (Docket Entry # 13).

and Other Costs (the “Blackburn Declaration”), Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Costs, and the
Amended Complaint filed in this case.
WHEREFORE, THIS COURT FINDS THAT:
1. Defendant Charles Williams was properly served with a copy of the Summons
and the Complaint. Additionally, Charles Williams was served with a copy of the
Amended Complaint. Despite such service, Charles Williams has failed to respond to the
Complaint or to otherwise appear or make any effort whatsoever to defend against
Plaintiffs’ claims, despite his acknowledged awareness of the pendency of this action.

2. Defendant Glenda Williams was properly served with a copy of the Summons and
the Amended Complaint. Despite such service, Glenda Williams has failed to respond to
the Complaint or to otherwise appear or make any effort whatsoever to defend against
Plaintiffs’ claims, despite her acknowledged awareness of the pendency of this action.

3. The Clerk of the Court previously entered a default on June 27, 2011, pursuant to
Rule 55(a). Defendants have made no attempt to seek to set aside the default or to
otherwise defend this action.
4. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of Plaintiffs’ costs as permitted by (i) S.C.
Code Ann. §39-5-140 as a result of Defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts and practices
in the conduct of trade and commerce and unfair competition, and also as permitted by
(ii) Defendants’ misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the South Carolina
Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

2

5. Plaintiffs’ verified Memorandum of Costs establishes that costs in the amount of
at least $575.84 have been incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with the prosecution of
this action.
6. A finding of willful, deliberate, malicious and fraudulent conduct has been
established in the instant case.
7. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees as permitted by (i) S.C. Code
Ann. §39-5-140 as a result of Defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the
conduct of trade and commerce and unfair competition, and as permitted by (ii) South
Carolina Code Ann. §39-8-80 as a result of Defendants willful misappropriation of trade
secrets in violation of the South Carolina Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
8. The attorneys’ fees, as evidenced in and supported by the Blackburn Declaration,
are reasonable because Plaintiff’s have shown that the time and labor expended on the
case was necessary given the difficulty of the questions raised and the time necessary to
obtain the factual information to support the claims set forth in the Complaint; the skill
required to properly perform the legal services rendered; the customary fee charged for
the work performed; the attorneys’ expectations at the outset of the litigation; the time
limitations imposed by the circumstances of needing to prevent Plaintiff from infringing;
the need for injunctive relief; and the experience reputation and ability of the attorneys
and paralegal working on this matter; as well as other factors.
9. The Declaration of Cherie Blackburn, counsel for Plaintiffs establishes that the
amount of attorneys’ fees expended by Plaintiffs to date in prosecuting this case is in the
minimum amount of $13,706.50.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

3

1. Judgment be entered against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of
$14,282.34, which amounts to:
a. $575.84 in costs; and
b. $13,706.50 in attorneys’ fees.
2. That the entire sum of the judgment bear post-judgment interest from the date of entry of
the judgment until paid in full, at a minimum of the legal rate for judgments.
3. That the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and persons acting in concert or
participation with Defendants, be permanently restrained and enjoined from:
a. engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of trade and
commerce pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §39-5-140;
b. using, disclosing or misappropriating Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, including, but not
limited to, information regarding its time share owners;
c. making defamatory comments regarding Plaintiffs, its principals and its
properties;
d. intentionally interfering with Plaintiffs’ contracts and prospective contractual
relations with its owners and buyers;
e. encouraging individuals to file claims against Plaintiffs, either in courts, with
state or federal agencies or otherwise;
f. falsely claiming that Defendants have filed a class action against Plaintiffs or that
Defendants have obtained settlements with Plaintiffs;
g. contacting Plaintiffs’ owners, buyers and potential buyers and soliciting and
encouraging them to terminate their relationships with Plaintiffs; and

4

h. inducing, assisting, or abetting any other person or business entity in engaging in
or performing any of the activities referred to above.
4. That a declaratory judgment be entered against Defendants holding Defendants liable for
willfully, intentional and maliciously violating SC Code Ann. §39-5-20 and for willfully
misappropriating trade secrets in violation of the South Carolina Uniform Trade Secrets
Act.
5. That Defendants permanently destroy the following:
a. any and all brochures, pamphlets, advertisements and other writings and
documents in the possession of the Defendants that contain defamatory
statements regarding Plaintiffs;
b. any and all documents that encourage or solicit owners, buyers or potential buyers
to discontinue their relationship with Plaintiffs or to terminate their contract with
Plaintiffs or to refrain from entering into a relationship with Plaintiffs;
c. any and all communications and documents that contain, disclose, use or were
created using Plaintiffs’ trade secrets;
6. That the Defendants remove all statements from their web sites regarding Plaintiffs and
their properties, including, but not limited to those web sites at
www.timesharecounsel.com and www.timesharelegalcounsel.com.
BE IT SO ORDERED.
ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2011

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
Judge R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Court Judge

5