CIT Small Business Lending Corporation v. Topcat Direct, Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER pursuant to the plaintiff's 9 MOTION for Entry of Default Judgment, directing the plaintiff to file the following by 11/14/2011: an affidavit setting forth in presice detail the manner by which plaintiff arrived at the total amount claim ed on the Note, as more fully set forth herein; and a separate affidavit setting forth in itemized detail the nature and calculation of costs and attorneys fees of $8,148.49. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 10/28/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (cbo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
CIT SMALL BUSINESS LENDING
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00527

TOPCAT DIRECT, INC., d/b/a
DIRECT BUY OF CHARLESTON-HUNTINGTON,
a West Virginia corporation, and
TIMOTHY R. PARKER and JENNIFER A. PARKER,
West Virginia individuals,
Defendants.
O R D E R

On August 4, 2011, plaintiff CIT Small Business
Lending Corporation (“CIT”) filed a complaint against defendants
Topcat Direct, Inc., d/b/a Direct Buy of Charleston-Huntington
(“Topcat”), Timothy R. Parker, and Jennifer A. Parker, seeking
recovery on a promissory note (the “Note”), as well as costs and
attorneys’ fees.

On October 14, 2011, the Clerk entered default

against defendants.

Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of

default judgment against defendants, also on October 14, 2011,
which is now pending.

In this motion, plaintiff seeks recovery of
$809,600.47, which consists of the unpaid principal amount of
1

$771,519.35, plus interest in the amount of $34,517.53
(calculated to October 10, 2011, per the terms of the Note),1
late charges of $1,990.89, and miscellaneous loan fees of
$1,572.70, all relative to the Note referenced in the complaint.
Plaintiff also seeks recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees in
the amount of $8,148.49.

Plaintiff attached two affidavits in

support of these figures.

For reasons appearing to the court, plaintiff is
directed to file the following on or by November 14, 2011:
1) An affidavit setting forth in precise detail the manner
by which plaintiff arrived at the total amount claimed on
the Note, including, but not limited to, information
respecting the interest rates, including the prime rate
or rates, and the calculation of the interest charge; the
nature and calculation of “late charges”; the nature and
calculation of “miscellaneous loan fees”; and
2) A separate affidavit setting forth in itemized detail the
nature and calculation of costs and attorneys fees of
$8,148.49.

1

The court observes an unexplained discrepancy in the
proposed judgment order attached to plaintiff’s motion, wherein
plaintiffs seek “interest through October 10, 2011 in the amount
of $32,937.53 . . . .” (Pl.’s Proposed Judgment Order at 4)
(emphasis added).

2

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this
written opinion and order to all counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.

ENTER: October 28, 2011

John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

3