All American Insurance Company v. Morris et al
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Wolftrap Motorsports, Inc. is GRANTED. It is ordered that Plaintiff be provided relief as requested in its Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 11/3/11 and filed on 11/4/11. (jcow, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Newport News Division
ALL AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:Ilcv41
ANNETTE MORRIS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs, All America Insurance Company, Motion
for Default Judgment against Defendant Wolftrap Motorsports, Inc. ("Wolftrap"). Wolftrap did
not file a response to Plaintiffs motion. Having held a hearing on this motion, the Court finds
the matter ripe for decision. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs Motion for Default
Judgment is GRANTED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 18,2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
against Defendant Wolftrap, among others. All America Insurance provides insurance coverage
to Promo Karts, another named Defendant in this action. Promo Karts potentially seeks coverage
against the claims of Annette Morris, a Wal-Mart employee, who alleges that she sustained
severe personal injuries as a result of an accident that occurred on May 3, 2008, when she was
operating a "mini kart" designed, manufactured, and sold by Promo Karts. However, Plaintiff
asks the Court to declare that it is excused from covering Promo Karts, pursuant to an exclusion
in the policy for losses sustained via mobile equipment. Ms. Morris alleged that Defendant
Wolftrap negligently entrusted its raceway for use which contributed to the injuries she suffered.
On May 2, 2011, Louis F. Gioia, President of Wolftrap, was personally served with the
summons and Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. Proof of service was filed with
the Court on May 20,2011. Two waiver of Service forms, along with additional copies of the
Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment were mailed to Mr. Gioia and to Michael L. Hill,
Vice-President of Wolftrap, on May 4, 2011. To date, Wolftrap failed to file an Answer in this
action and did not return the waiver of service form. On June 8, 2011, the Clerk entered default
against Wolftrap for failure to file an Answer in this action.
This Court initially scheduled a hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment for
November 3,2011, at 11:00 A.M. The Court then rescheduled the hearing for that same day at
12:30 P.M. Again, Wolftrap's President was personally served with notice of this change. The
Court held the hearing as scheduled and Wolftrap failed to appear.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion for Default Judgment
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the entry of default against a party when
that party has "failed to plead or otherwise defend" its case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). In cases
involving multiple claims or parties, "the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or
more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no
just reason for delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A party requesting a default judgment must make a
showing of the following: (1) when and against what party the default was entered; (2)
identification of the pleading to which default was entered; (3) whether the defaulting party is an
infant or incompetent person; (4) that the defendant is not in military services; and (5) that notice
has been served on the defaulting party, if required by Rule 55(b)(2). The Court may conduct a
hearing, if necessary, to take an accounting, determine the amount of damages, establish the truth
of any averment by evidence, or make an investigation of additional matters. Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(2).
Default judgments are to be granted sparingly, with consideration to be given to, among
other factors, the question of whether a less severe sanction would suffice. See, e.g.,Lolatchy v.
Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951,953-54 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Moradi, 673 F.2d
725, 727-28 (4th Cir. 1982). A panel of the Fourth Circuit also has noted that "the extreme
sanction ofjudgment by default is reserved for only cases where the party's noncompliance
represents bad faith or a complete disregard for the mandates of procedure and the authority of
the trial court." Pinpoint IT Services, L.L.C. v. Atlas IT Export Corp., 2011 WL 2748685, at *11
(E.D. Va. July 13, 2011) (quoting Mobil Oil Co. de Venez. v. Parada Jimenez, 989 F.2d 494,
1993 WL 61863, at *3 (4th Cir. Mar. 9, 1993) (unpublished table decision)). Entry of default
judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the Court and shall be reviewed only for abuse
of discretion. Lolatchy, 816 F.2d at 953-54.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Default Judgment
Plaintiff argues that a default judgment is warranted because of Defendant's failure to
defend the case and to comply with the mandates of procedure. Generally, a default judgment is
warranted where a defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend the action. Fed. R. Civ. P.
55; Music City Music v. Alfa Foods, Ltd., 616 F. Supp. 1001, 1002 (E.D. Va. 1985). Moreover, a
litigant's pro se status does not vitiate her obligation to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See, e.g., Michael D. Vick v. Wong el ai, 263 F.R.D. 325, 333 (E.D. Va. 2009)
(noting that "pro se litigants are subject to the same [procedural] rules as counsel"). Wolftrap
nor any counsel on its behalf have appeared or answered the Plaintiffs pleadings in this
litigation. Wolftrap repeatedly has been made aware of the existence of this matter and has still
failed to comply with the rules of procedure. Thus, a default judgment is appropriate under such
circumstances. See Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Ruben, 957 F.2d 126, 133 (4th Cir. 1992) (finding
default judgment proper where defendant did not appear at show cause hearing and did not
respond to certified notices sent by the court).
Defendant has failed to defend the case, including the instant Motion for Default
Judgment. On June 8,2011, the Clerk entered default against Wolftrap for failure to file an
Answer to the Complaint. Moreover, Wolftrap did not appear at the default hearing on the
instant motion held on November 3, 2011, of which the Defendant had notice. Lastly, Defendant
is not an infant, an incompetent person, or in the military service. At no point has Wolftrap
indicated to the Court that it intends to comply with the rules of procedure. See, e.g., Pinpoint IT
Services, LLC v. Atlas IT Export Corp., 2011 WL 2748685, at *11 (E.D. Va. 2011) (quoting
Mobil Oil Co. de Venez. v. Parada Jimenez, 989 F.2d 494, 1993 WL 616863, at *3 (4th Cir.
1993) (unpublished table decision))( "[T]he extreme sanction of judgment by default is reserved
for only cases where the party's noncompliance represents bad faith or a complete disregard for
the mandates of procedure and the authority of the trial court.").
Therefore, under the general rule laid out above, default judgment is appropriate and
Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Wolftrap
Motorsports, Inc. is GRANTED. It is ordered that Plaintiff be provided relief as requested in its
Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the
parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Raymond A. Jackson
United States District JudĀ«e
Norfolk, Virginia
November
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?