Intelsat Corporation v. Pallyn International, Inc.
This text of Intelsat Corporation v. Pallyn International, Inc. (Intelsat Corporation v. Pallyn International, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) ) ) INTELSAT CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-01644 ) (ABJ) (AK) PALLYN INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) ) Defendant ) Counterclaim-Plaintiff, ) ) ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. BACKGROUND
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Default Judgment [7] by Plaintiff, Intelsat
Corporation, for breach of contract and quantum meruit/unjust enrichment. On May 25, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default [5] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. The Clerk of Court
made an Entry of Default as to Defendant [6] on May 26, 2011. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for
Entry of Default Judgment [7] on June 7, 2011. The Motion was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for determination pursuant to LCvR 72.2(a). An evidentiary hearing was held
on September 21, 2011, at which Defendant did not appear. II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard for Default Judgment
The clerk of court must enter a default “[w]hen 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Where the plaintiff’s claim is not for a sum
certain, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). “The
determination of whether default judgment is appropriate is committed to the discretion of the
trial court.” Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. Auxier Drywall, LLC, 531 F.
Supp. 2d 56, 57 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
The standard for default judgment is satisfied where the defendant makes no request to set aside
the default and no suggestion that it has a meritorious defense. J.D. Holdings, LLC v. BD
Ventures, LLC, 766 F. Supp. 2d 109, 113 (D.D.C. 2011).
Upon entry of default by the clerk of the court, the “defaulting defendant is deemed to
admit every well-pleaded allegation in the complaint.” U.S. v. Bentley, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3
(D.D.C. 2010). The court must then make a determination of the sum to be awarded. Id. “The
court may rely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence to determine the appropriate sum
for the default judgment.” Id.
B. Analysis
Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Master Service Agreement on October 17, 2007,
that called for subsequent Service Orders. (Pl.’s Exs. 1-2.) Service Order No. 20595 established
a monthly recurring service fee of $11,445.00. (Pl.’s Ex. 2.) Defendant became delinquent on
2 the Service Order charges, eventually compiling over nine months’ balance outstanding before
Plaintiff terminated service. (Pl.’s Ex. 4.)
At the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff offered John C. Nibecker as a witness. Mr. Nibecker
serves as Senior Manager of Credit and Collections for Intelsat Corp. Mr. Nibecker testified that
when he inquired about Defendant’s delinquent bill, Defendant gave reasons why service should
continue and asserted that it would pay its bill, prompting Plaintiff to continue service for a
longer period of time than it otherwise would for a delinquent account.
Plaintiff requests $103,305.00 in outstanding invoices. (Pl.’s Ex. 4.) Plaintiff also
requests $36,613.34 in interest based on an 18% per annum rate as set out in the Master Service
Agreement. (Pl.’s Exs. 1, 5.) Therefore, the total amount requested is $139,918.34.
The Clerk of Court’s Entry of Default as to Defendant [6] established Defendant’s
liability. Defendant offered no evidence prior to or at the evidentiary hearing disputing the sum
to be awarded.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment by
Default [7] and will award damages totaling $139,918.34.
A separate Order of judgment will accompany this Opinion.
Date: September 23, 2011 ________________/s/__________________ ALAN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Intelsat Corporation v. Pallyn International, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/intelsat-corporation-v-pallyn-international-inc-dcd-2011.