Chenevert v. Lunsford

District Court, W.D. Arkansas·Decided July 15, 2021·No. 5:20-cv-05172·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

BRETT THOMAS CHENEVERT PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:20-CV-5172-TLB

MARY SMITH; BLUE WATER TRANSPORT, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1–3 DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On July 7, 2021, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff Brett Thomas Chenevert’s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendants Mary Smith and Blue Water Transportation, LLC (“Blue Water”) (Doc. 21). The purpose of this hearing was to determine what damages, if any, Mr. Chenevert is entitled to as against Ms. Smith and Blue Water. Now having considered the pleadings and the testimony presented at the hearing, the Court finds Mr. Chenevert is entitled to a default judgment against Ms. Smith and Blue Water, GRANTS the Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 21), and enters a contemporaneous Judgment in the full amount of $206,843.28, plus interest. I. BACKGROUND This litigation arises out of a failed partnership between Mr. Chenevert, Jeff Lunsford, Ms. Smith, and Blue Water. The purpose of the erstwhile partnership was to finance and manufacture specialized trailers that would transport wind turbine blades for General Electric. Mr. Chenevert is a freight broker, and he knew Mr. Lunsford and Ms. Smith through that business, as the entity they own, Blue Water, is a freight carrier. Mr. Chenevert provided the seed money for the venture. Specifically, Mr. Chenevert alleges that he wired $186,000.00 to Mr. Lunsford, Ms. Smith, and Blue Water to purchase three specialized trailers from Hale Trailer Brake and Wheel. Mr. Lunsford, Ms. Smith, and Blue Water then ceased communications with Mr. Chenevert. Mr. Chenevert discovered that $20,000.00 was used as a down payment to Hale Trailer Brake and Wheel, but the remainder of the funds went missing. Hale Trailer Brake and Wheel refunded Mr.

Chenevert the $20,000.00, but Mr. Chenevert has not received back the remaining $166,000.00. Accordingly, Mr. Chenevert brought claims for fraud and misrepresentation, breach of contract, and conversion against Mr. Lunsford, Ms. Smith, Blue Water, and several John Doe defendants. He seeks $166,000.00 in monetary damages, as well as punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs. Mr. Chenevert served Ms. Smith and Blue Water in October 2020, see Docs. 8 & 9, and they have not answered. The Clerk entered an entry of default as to Ms. Smith and Blue Water on December 11, 2020. See Doc. 13. Before serving Mr. Lunsford, Mr. Chenevert prematurely sought a default judgment against Ms. Smith and Blue Water. The Court denied that request, see Doc. 17, so Mr. Chenevert dismissed his claims

against Mr. Lunsford. See Doc. 19. As for the John Doe defendants, Mr. Chenevert has failed to identify these defendants, so the Court will dismiss them. Thus, the only live claims in this action are against Ms. Smith and Blue Water. Turning to these remaining live claims, the Court has already held that Ms. Smith and Blue Water are entitled to a default judgment, see Doc. 22, but the Court left open the issue of damages. The Court held a hearing on damages on July 7, 2021, during which Mr. Chenevert provided sworn testimony. The Court previously directed Mr. Chenevert’s counsel to mail a copy of the Order setting the hearing date and time to Ms. Smith and Blue Water at their last known address, and counsel completed that task. See Docs. 24 & 25. However, no representative for Ms. Smith or Blue Water appeared at the hearing. II. LEGAL STANDARD Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as

follows: (a) Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.

(b) Entering a Default Judgment.

(1) By the Clerk. If the plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation, the clerk—on the plaintiff's request, with an affidavit showing the amount due—must enter judgment for that amount and costs against a defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an incompetent person.

(2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment. . . . The court may conduct hearings or make referrals — preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial—when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to:

(A) conduct an accounting;

(B) determine the amount of damages;

(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or

(D) investigate any other matter.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Rule 55 contemplates a two-step process for the entry of default judgments. United States v. Williamson., 2013 WL 7864735, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 21, 2013) (citing Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Youngtek Sols., Ltd., 796 F. Supp. 2d 946, 950–951 (N.D. Iowa 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). First, pursuant to Rule 55(a), the party seeking a default judgment must have the clerk enter the default by submitting the required proof that the opposing party has failed to plead or otherwise defend. Id. Second, pursuant to Rule 55(b), the moving party may seek entry of judgment on the default under either subdivision (b)(1) or (b)(2) of the Rule. Id.

In the instant case, Clerk entered a default under Rule 55(a) on December 13, 2020, then the Court found that Ms. Smith and Blue Water are were in default under Rule 55(b) (Doc. 22). All that is left for the Court to do is determine the amount of damages reasonably owed to Mr. Chenevert under Rule 55(b)(2) and enter a Judgment. III. DISCUSSION A. Damages

The Court has considered Mr. Chenevert’s Complaint, his testimony in Court at the hearing on the Motion, and the three exhibits he submitted during that hearing. According to these documents and his testimony, Mr. Chenevert had an oral contract with Mr. Lunsford, Ms. Smith, and Blue Water to purchase specialized trailers from a supplier. Mr. Chenevert wired $186,000.00 to Mr. Lunsford, Ms. Smith, and Blue Water for that purpose, and $20,000.00 of that sum was paid to the trailer supplier as a down payment. The supplier eventually refunded Mr. Chenevert the $20,000.00 down payment, but the remaining $166,000.00 went missing, and Mr. Chenevert’s entreaties to Mr. Lunsford and Ms. Smith went unanswered. As of the July 7, 2021 hearing, Mr. Chenevert had not received back any of the $166,000.00. Based upon the pleadings and evidence before the Court, and for the reasons explained from the bench, the Court finds that Mr. Chenevert is entitled to compensatory damages for breach of contract, conversion, fraud, and misrepresentation. The Court therefore awards him $166,000.00 in compensatory damages as against Ms. Smith and Blue Water. As to punitive damages, the Court finds that Mr. Chenevert has prevailed on claims sounding in tort and has demonstrated that punitive damages are appropriate. Accordingly, the Court awards him $34,000.00 in punitive damages as against Ms. Smith

and Blue Water. B. Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Arkansas Code § 16-22-308, a court may award “a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party in a breach-of-contract case.” Pursuant to the default posture of this case, the Court finds that Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Chenevert v. Lunsford, (W.D. Ark. 2021).

Chenevert v. Lunsford (Chenevert v. Lunsford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Youngtek Solutions Ltd.
796 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Iowa, 2011)
Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. Troutman Oil Co.
938 S.W.2d 565 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1997)
Mary Ellen Pinkham v. L'eggs Brands, Inc.
84 F.3d 292 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)