KG Strategies, LLC v. Maefield Development Corporation

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. 9 ), is GRANTED in part. Judgment is entered in favor of KG Strategies, LLC in terms of liability on its breach of contract claim, but no damages will be awarded at this time. The Court will not enter a final judgment at this time. Plaintiff may file a motion for final judgment in accordance with this order and the reasoning in the report and recommenda tion, and file adequate support for its proposed damages calculation, or or before March 18, 2025. If Plaintiff does not file support for its alleged damages and / or fees amount by that date, the Court intends to enter final judgment closing the case. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (cnr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
KG STRATEGIES, LLC,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
MAEFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

1:24-CV-1001-RP

ORDER
Before the Court is the report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge
Mark Lane concerning Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, (Dkt. 9). (R. & R., Dkt.
14). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Lane issued his report and
recommendation on February 11, 2025. (Id.). As of the date of this order, no party has filed
objections to the report and recommendation.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party may serve and file specific, written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served
with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the
district court. When no objections are timely filed, a district court can review the magistrate’s report
and recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When no
timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
Because no party has filed timely objections, the Court reviews the report and
recommendation for clear error. Having done so and finding no clear error, the Court accepts and
adopts the report and recommendation as its own order.
1

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. 14), is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. 9),
is GRANTED in part. Judgment is entered in favor of KG Strategies, LLC in terms of liability on
its breach of contract claim, but no damages will be awarded at this time.
In the context of default judgment, damages must generally be proven by the submission of
evidence, such as an affidavit, or through an evidentiary hearing. Cacho v. Amity One Debt Relief, No.
EP-24-CV-160-KC, 2024 WL 4594177, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2024) (citing United Artists Corp. v.
Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2)(B) explicitly
grants the district court wide latitude on whether to hold or forgo an evidentiary hearing on the issue
of damages. J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Patino, No. EP-16-CV-00412-DCG, 2017 WL 2297029, at *2
(W.D. Tex. May 24, 2017) (citing James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993)); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(b)(2)(B). When forgoing an evidentiary hearing, damages may be proven through detailed
affidavits. See e.g. J&J Sports Prods., 2017 WL 2297029, at *3 (relying on affidavits to award statutory
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees).
When relying on pleadings and supporting documents such as affidavits to award damages
on a motion for default judgment, the Court must be able to determine the amount of damages
“with certainty.” See Longwell v. Wynd Travel Choice Glob., Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00557-RP, 2022 WL
22877319, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2022). Courts have found certain sums by reviewing affidavits
supported by documentary evidence such as invoices, bills, and payment receipts. See e.g., Longwell,
2022 WL 22877319, at *3; EW Polymer Group, LLC v. GSX Int’l Group, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 3d 232, 239
(M.D. La. 2022); Mid-Gulf Shipping Co. Inc. v. Energy Subsea LLC, 472 F. Supp. 3d 318, 325 (E.D. La.
2020).
The Court will not enter a final judgment at this time. Plaintiff may file a motion for final
judgment in accordance with this order and the reasoning in the report and recommendation, and

2

file adequate support for its proposed damages calculation, on or before March 18, 2025. If Plaintiff
does not file support for its alleged damages and/or fees amount by that date, the Court intends to
enter final judgment closing the case.
SIGNED on March 5, 2025.

ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3