Hames v. SunTrust Bank, et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying without prejudice 36 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 10/04/2018.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

ALLISON HAMES,

Plaintiff,
v.
SUNTRUST BANK;
CITIBANK, N.A.;
and JEFFREY CRANFORD

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 18-2121

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Allison Hames’ September 11,
2018 Motion for Default Judgment as to Jeffrey Cranford.

(ECF No.

36.) Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Suntrust Bank,
Citibank, N.A., and a fictitious party labeled John Doe in the
Tennessee Circuit Court for the Thirtieth Judicial District at
Memphis.

(ECF No. 1.)

On January 20, 2018, Defendants Suntrust

Bank and Citibank, N.A. removed to this Court on the basis of
diversity.

(Id.) On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint identifying the fictitious party as Jeffrey Cranford.
(ECF No. 20.)

Plaintiff’s

Amended

Complaint

brings

four

claims

against

Defendants: (1) breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty;
(2) conversion; (3) “fraud and/or misrepresentation”; and (4)
“other reckless and/or negligent actions and/or omissions”.

(ECF

No. 20 ¶¶ 18–38.) Plaintiff seeks $150,000 in compensatory damages
from all Defendants, and $1,000,000 in punitive damages from
Cranford.
Defendant Cranford was properly served on June 26, 2018.
(Proof Serv., ECF No. 31-1.)

The Summons instructed Cranford to

serve an answer on Plaintiff or her attorney within twenty-one
days after service.

(Cranford Summ., ECF No. 30.)

Cranford has

not filed any responsive pleading or appeared in this action.

On

September 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default
against Cranford under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
(Mot. Def., ECF No. 34.)

On September 10, 2018, the Clerk entered

a Default against Cranford under Rule 55(a).

(Clerk’s Ent. Def.,

ECF No. 34.)
On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default
Judgment as to Defendant Jeffrey Cranford under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(b)(2).

(Mot. Def. Judg., ECF No. 36.)

In the

affidavit attached to her Motion, Plaintiff asks that the Court
order Cranford to pay “$1,150,000.00 ($150,000.00 in compensatory
damages and $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages) plus interest from

2

the date of judgment as provided by law, together with the costs
of this action.”

(ECF No. 36-1 at 127.) 1

Plaintiff offers no evidence to support the damages she seeks.
Even in the context of a default judgment, the Court has an
obligation to ensure that there is a legitimate basis for an award
of damages.

See Hitachi Med. Sys. v. Lubbock Open MRI, 2010 WL

5129311, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 2010) (citations omitted).
Damages may only be awarded on a default judgment when the record
adequately supports the award. See id.; Mill's Pride, L.P. v. W.D.
Miller Enters., LLC, 2010 WL 987167, at * 1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12,
2010) (“[T]he party moving for a default judgment must present
some evidence of its damages.”).
In her Affidavit in Support of Default Judgment, Plaintiff
cites

her

Amended

Complaint

without

explanation.

Assuming

Plaintiff bases the damages she seeks on the allegations in her
Amended Complaint, her basis is invalid.

Rule 8(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the effect of
failing to deny an allegation in a complaint is an admission unless
the

allegation

is

“one

relating

to

the

amount

of

damages.”

Plaintiff cannot rely solely on the allegations in the Amended
Complaint as evidence of damages.
Plasterers

1

&

Cement

Masons

See Dirs. of Ohio Conference of

Combined

Funds,

Inc.

Pin citations to the record refer to the CM/ECF PageID number.

3

v.

Indus.

Contracting Co., 2017 WL 6028247, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 4, 2017)
(“Well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as to liability are
taken as true when a defendant is in default, but not as to
damages.”).
Plaintiff

has

submitted

no

documentary

or

other

proof

supporting the amount of damages, costs, and interest. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Default Judgment as to Jeffrey Cranford is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

So ordered this 4th day of October, 2018.
s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4