McGregor Metalworking Companies v. Lummus Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedMarch 15, 2022
Docket3:21-cv-00323
StatusUnknown

This text of McGregor Metalworking Companies v. Lummus Corporation (McGregor Metalworking Companies v. Lummus Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McGregor Metalworking Companies v. Lummus Corporation, (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

MCGREGOR METALWORKING COMPANIES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:21-cv-323

vs.

LUMMUS CORPORATION, District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 10); AND (2) CONFIRMING THE ARBITRATION AWARD (Doc. No. 6-1) ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff SC Metal Products LLC, Morgal Machine Tool Co., and their Affiliates, d/b/a The McGregor Metalworking Companies’, motion for a default judgment against Defendant Lummus Corporation. Doc. No. 10. In October 2021, Plaintiff, an Ohio corporation (Doc. No. 6-4 at PageID 81), received a final arbitration award from an arbitration panel over Defendant, a Georgia corporation (Doc. No. 1 at PageID 3). See Doc. No. 6-1. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff pursuant to that award, so Plaintiff filed suit in this Court to enforce and confirm the award. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment asking for, among other things, a sum certain of $242,435.71 for lost profit damages; attorney’s fees; and costs and expenses, plus interest at the rate of 7.35% compounded annually since October 22, 2021, until paid. Doc. No. 10 at PageID 103. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks an order confirming the terms of the award. Id. After Defendant failed to timely respond to the complaint or appear in this matter, the Clerk of Court docketed an entry of default against Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Doc. No. 9. Plaintiff thereafter moved for a default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Doc. No. 10. Defendant has not filed a memorandum in opposition, and the time for doing so under S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2) has expired. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. I. A party defaults when it fails to “plead or otherwise defend” an action. Fed. R. Civ. P.

55(a). Once default is shown by affidavit or otherwise, “the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Id. After entry of default against a defaulting party: If 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 defaulted by not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an incompetent person.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1). Otherwise, “the party must apply to the court for a default judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). In determining whether to enter a default judgment, the Court should consider: “(1) possible prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the claims; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the amount of money at stake; (5) possible disputed material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the preference for decisions on the merits.” Russell v. City of Farmington Hills, 34 F. App’x 196, 198 (6th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff perfected service on Defendant. Plaintiff’s attorney submitted an affidavit stating that Defendant was successfully served with a summons and that he subsequently returned the executed summons to the Clerk of Court. Doc. No. 8-1 at PageID 98. Despite proper service, Defendant has failed to file an answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff’s complaint within the time allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. As a result, the Clerk entered a default against Defendant. Doc. No. 9. Defendant has since failed to offer any objection to the entry of default and has not moved to set aside that default. Without such action by Defendant, the record lacks any explanation for Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. Therefore, default judgment is warranted against Defendant. This does not end the matter because a default judgment fails as a matter of law if Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. See Gen. Conf. Corp.

of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill, 617 F.3d 402, 407 (6th Cir. 2010). Moreover, the Court must determine that jurisdiction is proper over Defendant and, if so, ascertain appropriate damages. See Flynn v. People’s Choice Home Loans, Inc., 440 F. App’x 452, 455 (6th Cir. 2011); Citizens Bank v. Parnes, 376 F. App’x 496, 501 (6th Cir. 2010). II. Plaintiff satisfies every requirement necessary for a default judgment. First, the Court possesses jurisdiction to hear this case; second, there are plausible grounds for relief; and third, Plaintiff has proven damages. See Gen Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 617 F.3d at 407; Flynn, 440 F. App’x at 455; Citizens Bank, 376 F. App’x at 501. A. Jurisdiction As with all cases, subject matter and personal jurisdiction are threshold requirements.

There is diversity jurisdiction here, as Plaintiff is an Ohio corporation, Defendant is a Georgia corporation, and the amount in controversy (the arbitration award) exceeds $75,000. See Doc. No. 1 at PageID 3; see also, e.g., Hale v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, 982 F.3d 996, 998–99 (6th Cir. 2020) (diversity jurisdiction exists under the FAA if the underlying award sought to be confirmed or vacated exceeds $75,000). Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The Court can also exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. In the instant case, Defendant transacted business within Ohio -- specifically, Springfield, Ohio, where it purchased Plaintiff’s goods -- so it purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to conduct business within Ohio. Doc. No. 6 at PageID 59; see Brunner v. Hampson, 441 F.3d 457, 463 (6th Cir. 2006). Looking to the underlying dispute, Defendant contacted Plaintiff in Ohio, the forum state, related to the business dispute that was the subject of the arbitration. See CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1267 (6th Cir. 1996). Thus, the cause of action -- confirming an arbitration award

over a dispute between the parties over business conducted in Ohio -- arises from Defendant’s contacts with Ohio, so the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction. Doc. No. 6 at PageID 59; see, e.g., J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 885–86 (2011). B. Liability Once default has been entered, the factual allegations in the complaint, except those related to damages, are accepted as true. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6); Stooksbury v. Ross, 528 F. App’x 547, 551 (6th Cir. 2013) (treating the factual allegations of a complaint on liability as true because the defendant produced no timely responsive pleading). The FAA governs the Court’s treatment of arbitration agreements. See 9 U.S.C. § 4.

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

Related

Citizens Bank v. Howard Parnes
376 F. App'x 496 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc.
552 U.S. 576 (Supreme Court, 2008)
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
131 S. Ct. 2780 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Michael Meyer v. City of Cincinnati
943 F.2d 52 (Sixth Circuit, 1991)
William Flynn v. People's Choice Home Loans, Inc
440 F. App'x 452 (Sixth Circuit, 2011)
Brunner v. Hampson
441 F.3d 457 (Sixth Circuit, 2006)
Robert Stooksbury, Jr. v. Michael Ross
528 F. App'x 547 (Sixth Circuit, 2013)
Richard Hale v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC
982 F.3d 996 (Sixth Circuit, 2020)
Russell v. City of Farmington Hills
34 F. App'x 196 (Sixth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McGregor Metalworking Companies v. Lummus Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgregor-metalworking-companies-v-lummus-corporation-ohsd-2022.