AVT Illinois v. AJT Services et al
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on 10/12/2021. (jrl)
_
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AVT ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:20-CV-280-HCN-DAO
AJT SERVICES et al.,
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
United States District Judge
Defendants.
On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Complaint. See Dkt. No. 2. None of the Defendants
responded in any way. Two months later, on June 24, 2020, Plaintiff moved for entry of default
against the Defendants. See Dkt. No. 11. The Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default on
July 15, 2020. See Dkt. No. 15.
A few weeks later, Defendants moved to set aside the certificate of default. See Dkt. No.
18. Although the Complaint was served and mailed to their places of business, Defendants
claimed never to have seen it because Mr. Kaputluoglu, the individual Defendant who also owns
the three corporate Defendants, was working from home during the height of the COVID-19
pandemic. See id. at 4–6. After the parties stipulated to setting aside the default, see Dkt. No. 22,
the court granted this relief on August 20, 2020, see Dkt. No. 23. The court also directed
Defendants to answer the Complaint within ten days. See id. Defendants belatedly did so on
September 16, 2020. See Dkt. No. 24.
On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment against Defendants AJT
Service Co. and Mr. Kaputluoglu. See Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff did not seek summary judgment
against Defendants Chicagoan Logistic Co. and NaHaul, Inc. because they had filed for
1
bankruptcy. Defendants never filed a response, sought an extension of the deadline for filing a
response, or otherwise communicated with the court after this motion was filed. On August 27,
2021, the court ordered Defendants to “file a brief showing cause why the motion should not be
granted” no later than September 10, 2021. Dkt. No. 31. Although more than a month has gone
by since this deadline passed, Defendants have not responded to this order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1) provides that “[o]n motion or on its own, the
court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)–(vii)” when a
party “fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(b)(2)(A)(ii)–(vii) does not explicitly include granting a motion for summary judgment against
a defaulting party among the sanctions it enumerates, both that Rule and Rule 16(f)(1) authorize
the court to issue any “just orders.” Given the court’s explicit warning of this sanction in its order
to show cause, as well as Defendants’ complete disregard of that order, the court has little
difficulty concluding that granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment would be a just
order. Indeed, several of the sanctions enumerated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(b)(2)(A)(ii)–(vii) are comparable to such an order, including, most notably, “rendering a
default judgment against the disobedient party.”
Plaintiff submitted substantial documentation of its damages, its right of possession, and
its right to foreclose on Defendants’ assets in connection with its motion for summary judgment.
See Dkt. No. 29-2–7. The court will accordingly enter judgment for Plaintiff and against
Defendants AJT Service Co. and Serkan B. Kaputluoglu in the amount of $558,865.09, plus
interest on this amount at the rate of eighteen percent per annum from July 7, 2021 to the
satisfaction of judgment, as well as reasonable late fees, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Both of these
Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable. Plaintiff shall submit documentation of the
2
reasonable late fees, attorneys’ fees, and costs that it seeks to recover no later than October 26,
2021. The court will also issue a writ of replevin requiring AJT Service Co. to return the leased
trucking equipment to a location of Plaintiff’s choosing within the continental United States and
an order of foreclosure on all of Defendants AJT Service Co.’s and Mr. Kaputluoglu’s assets.
Plaintiff shall submit a proposed writ of replevin and a proposed order of foreclosure no later
than October 26, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of October, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
United States District Judge
3
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?