First Bank & Trust v. Greene Enterprise, LLC et al
Filing
26
Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Motion For Default Judgment granting 21 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 23 Motion To Supplement Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 10/29/2014. (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OCT 302014
~.u~
(~-
"CLERK
****************************************************
*
FIRST BANK & TRUST d/b/a
CIV. 13-4017
*
FIRSTLINE FUNDING GROUP,
*
*
Plaintiff,
* MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
* ORDER GRANTING MOTION
vs.
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
*
GREENE ENTERPRISE, LLC, and
*
JAMES GREENE,
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
****************************************************
The background of this case is set forth in this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order
issued on July 25,2014. (Doc. 22.) For the reasons set forth in that Memorandum Opinion, and for
the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, doc. 21, will be granted.
In support of its motion for default judgment against defendants James Greene and Greene
Enterprise, LLC (Greene), Plaintiff Bank has filed an affidavit demonstrating amounts due to Bank,
signed by Lori Gustaf, the Vice President ofFirstLine Funding Group and an officer of Bank. (Doc.
25.) Lori Gustaf is personally aware of this matter and kept business records based on all
disbursements and receipts involving Greene. Id. at ~ 2. She sets forth an accounting ofthe amounts
due and owing from August 10,2011 through August 22,2012, for a total of $572,808.97. The
accounting is based on the Bank's internal record-keeping system. Id. at ~ 3.
Bank has also filed an affidavit signed by its lawyer in this case, David Jencks. (Doc. 24.)
David Jencks attests that Bank is seeking damages in the amount of$572,808.97 based on the breach
of contract and conversion causes of action alleged against Greene in the Complaint. Id. at ~ 4. He
includes a copy of the same business records relied on by Lori Gustaf, explaining that the records
show a calculation of each and every invoice paid directly to Greene "and/or money procured and
converted by" Greene from Bank that has not been paid back to Bank. Id. at ~ 6.
Before the Court enters a default judgment it must be satisfied that "the unchallenged facts
constitute a legitimate cause of action." Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon
consideration ofthe complaint and the substantive merits ofBank's claims, the Court concludes that
the complaint adequately alleges and supports the causes of action for conversion, breach of the
Factoring and Security Agreement by Greene Enterprise and Greene, and breach ofthe Guaranty by
Greene. The defendants' failure to answer or otherwise defend this case leaves no dispute that the
Agreement and the Guaranty are valid contracts, that defendants breached those contracts, that any
damages that can be proved resulting from the breach may be recovered by the Bank as party to the
Factoring Agreement and from Greene based on his guaranty of Greene Enterprise's obligations.
Thus, Bank is entitled to a default judgment. See, e.g., McKie v. Huntley, 620 N.W.2d 599, 603
(S.D. 2000) (under South Dakota law, to prove a breach of contract a plaintiff must show by a
preponderance ofthe evidence that 1) an enforceable promise existed; 2) the defendant breached the
contract; and 3) damages resulted from defendant's breach of the contract). Furthermore, Bank is
entitled to default judgment on its conversion claim. See, e.g., First Am. Bank & Trust, N.A. v.
Farmers State Bank ofCanton, 756 N.W.2d 19, 31 (S.D. 2008) (to prove conversion under South
Dakota law, a plaintiffmust show: "(1) [plaintiff] owned or had a possessory interest in the property;
(2) [plaintiffs] interest in the property was greater than the [defendant's]; (3) [defendant] exercised
dominion or control over or seriously interfered with [plaintiffs] interest in the property; and (4)
such conduct deprived [plaintiff] of its interest in the property"). The Court must now decide what
damages to award Bank.
Allegations relating to the amount of damages must be proven to a reasonable degree of
certainty. See Everyday Learning Corp. v. Larson, 242 F.3d 815,818-19 (8th Cir. 2001). Theparty
seeking default must document "the mathematical calculation used to reach the final amount in each
category of damages requested," and the district court must provide specific, detailed findings
regarding damage calculations in default judgments. Stephenson v. El-Batrawi, 524 F.3d 907,
916-17 (8th Cir. 2008) ("generic reference to evidentiary support for the damages determination"
is insufficient; default judgment vacated and remanded for additional findings). Bank has submitted
supporting documentation for its calculation of damages sufficient for the Court to determine that
2
it is entitled to recover $572,808.97 for the defendants' breach of contract and conversion. The
Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not required here. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff s motion for default judgment, doc. 21, and
motion to supplement, doc. 23, are granted. Default judgment will be entered against
the defendants, James Greene and Greene Enterprise, LLC, awarding Plaintiff
$572,808.97 in rrmages.
Dated this
2-- q -day of October, 2014.
Uel
BY THE COURT:
ifWt!zw-t~
\ lawrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge
ATTEST:
JOSEPH HAAS, CLERK
BY:~~
(SEA
DEPUTY
3
CtÂ
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?