Knight Brothers v. Barer Engineering Company of America et al
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting 82 Renewed Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 08/22/12. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
KNIGHT BROTHERS LLC, a Utah limited
liability company, dba INTERMOUNTAIN
RIGGING AND HEAVY HAUL,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED
MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
v.
BARER ENGINEERING COMPANY OF
AMERICA, a Vermont Corporation,
CENTRAL BEARING CORPORATION
LTD, dba BARER ENGINEERING
COMPANY OF AMERICA, CENTRAL
BEARING CORPORATION LTD, dba
BARER ENGINEERING
INTERNATIONAL, and DAVID BARER, an
individual,
Case No. 2:10-CV-108 TS
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Knight Brothers LLC’s—dba Intermountain
Rigging and Heavy Haul—Renewed Motion for Default Judgment.1 Through its Motion,
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendant Barer Engineering Company of America
(“Barer Engineering”).
1
Docket No. 82.
1
I. BACKGROUND
The factual background of this case is more fully set out in this Court’s Memorandum
Decision and Order denying Motion for Attorney Fees and Motion for Default Judgment entered
June 18, 2012, and will not be repeated here.2
Plaintiff previously filed a motion for default judgment against Barer Engineering based
on Barer Engineering’s alleged failure to obtain counsel. Plaintiff also complained of Barer
Engineering’s failure to abide by the rules of discovery. The Court denied without prejudice
Plaintiff’s original motion for default judgment in its June 18, 2012 Order because Barer
Engineering was not at that time without representation. However, the Court specifically warned
Barer Engineering that “future dilatory conduct may result in sanctions, including terminating
sanctions.”3
On June 19, 2012, the Court granted Barer Engineering’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.4
In its order granting withdrawal, the Court instructed Barer Engineering that it must file a notice
of appearance of new counsel on behalf of Barer Engineering within twenty-one days. Since that
time, Barer Engineering has taken no action in this case.
Plaintiff has provided an affidavit supporting judgment in the following amounts: (1)
damages in the principal amount of $431,160.20; (2) prejudgment interest in the amount of
$213,424.30 through July 21, 2012, with additional prejudgment interest accruing thereafter at a
2
Docket No. 79.
3
Id. at 5.
4
Docket No. 80.
2
rate of $212.63 per day until the date of entry of this judgment; and (3) post-judgment interest
thereon from the date of judgment as provided by statute.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Local Rule DUCivR 83-1.4(c)(5) “[a]n unrepresented party who fails to
appear within twenty-one (21) days after entry of the order” allowing withdrawal of counsel
“may be subject to sanction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1), including but
not limited to dismissal or default judgment.”
“A district court . . . has discretion to sanction a party for failing to prosecute or defend a
case, or for failing to comply with local or federal procedural rules. Such sanctions may include
dismissing the party’s case with prejudice or entering judgment against the party.”5 “[D]ismissal
or other final disposition of a party’s claim ‘is a severe sanction reserved for the extreme case,
and is only appropriate where a lesser sanction would not serve the ends of justice.’”6 In
applying such a sanction, the district court must consider the following factors:
(1) the degree of actual prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the degree of
interference with the judicial process, (3) the litigant’s culpability, (4) whether the
litigant was warned in advance that dismissal was a likely sanction, and (5)
whether a lesser sanction would be effective.7
Here, Plaintiff has been prejudiced by the delay caused by Barer Engineering’s dilatory
actions and failure to abide by the Court’s orders. This case was originally filed in February of
5
Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing Hancock v. City of Okla.
City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1396 (10th Cir. 1988)).
6
Id. (quoting Hancock, 857 F.2d at 1396).
7
LaFleur v. Teen Help, 342 F.3d 1145, 1151 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
3
2010. Because of Barer Engineering’s actions, Plaintiff has not been able to conduct necessary
discovery to progress its case. As such, Barer Engineering has delayed a determination of this
case on its merits, thereby withholding from Plaintiff the sum it alleges it is owed. This same
delay impeded the speedy resolution of this case and has interfered with the judicial process.
Furthermore, Barer Engineering is directly culpable in that it has failed to respond, appear, or
otherwise present a defense in this matter.
The last two factors are also met. Barer Engineering was directly warned in the Court’s
June 18, 2012 Memorandum Decision and June 19, 2012 Order that future dilatory conduct and
failure to appoint new counsel could result in terminating sanctions. Since that time, Barer
Engineering has taken no action to bring itself in compliance with this Court’s orders. A lesser
sanction is unlikely to be effective as Barer Engineering has demonstrated an unwillingness to
submit to the jurisdiction of this Court or bring itself in compliance with the Court’s orders.
In sum, the Court finds that the facts of this case warrant entry of judgment against Barer
Engineering. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s Motion.
III. CONCLUSION
As this Court has previously noted, the corporate defendants in this case “are alleged to
be alter egos and instrumentalities of Defendant David Barer and each other.”8 Barer
Engineering was the only remaining defendant to dispute liability—the Clerk of Court has
entered default certificates as to the other named defendants. Barer Engineering’s default
8
Docket No. 46, at 4.
4
therefore entitles Plaintiff to a final judgment against all of the Defendants in this case.9 It is
therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (Docket No. 82) is
GRANTED . The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendants as follows: damages in the principal amount of $431,160.20; prejudgment interest in
the amount of $213,424.30 through July 21, 2012, with additional prejudgment interest accruing
thereafter at a rate of $212.63 per day until the date of entry of this judgment; and post-judgment
interest thereon from the date of judgment as provided by statute.
DATED August 22, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
9
See Frow v. De La Vega, 15 Wall. 552, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872); Haines v. Fisher, 82
F.3d 1503, 1511 (10th Cir. 1996).
5
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?