QC CONSTRUCTION LLC v. CYPRESS CONTRACTING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP

District Court, M.D. Georgia·Decided November 2, 2023·No. 5:22-cv-00092·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

QC CONSTRUCTION LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-92 (MTT) ) CYPRESS CONTRACTING AND ) DEVELOPMENT CORP, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff QC Construction LLC moves for default judgment against defendant Cypress Contracting and Development Corp. (“Cypress”). Doc. 29. For the following reasons, that motion (Doc. 29) is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND The allegations of the complaint, deemed admitted because of Cypress’s default, establish these facts. On June 5, 2020, “Cypress entered into a contract with [QC Construction] to provide various labor services for” the development of a commercial construction site in Warner Robins, Georgia. Docs. 1 ¶¶ 8-9; 1-2. QC Construction submitted five applications requesting payment from Cypress, totaling $647,131.45. Docs. 1 ¶ 11; 1-3 at 2, 4, 6, 8, 11. Cypress submitted payment in the amount of $475,602.97, leaving a remaining balance of $171,528.48. Docs. 1 ¶ 11; 1-3 at 13-16. Cypress has refused to pay the remaining balance despite demands by QC Construction. Doc. 1 ¶ 11. On March 3, 2022, QC Construction filed suit alleging that Cypress breached the construction contract and violated the Georgia Prompt Payment Act, O.C.G.A. § 13-11- 1 et seq.1 Doc. 1. QC Construction seeks damages plus attorney fees and costs. Docs. 1; 39. Cypress was served with process on April 28, 2022, but did not file a

responsive pleading within 21 days. Doc. 15. Accordingly, default was entered against Cypress on March 17, 2023. Doc. 26. On April 6, 2023, QC Construction moved for default judgment. Doc. 29. II. STANDARD Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), the Clerk of Court must enter a party’s default if that party’s failure to plead or otherwise defend an action against it “is shown by affidavit or otherwise.” After default has been entered, the Clerk may enter a default judgment on the plaintiff’s request if the claim “is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation,” as long as the party is not a minor or incompetent and has not made an appearance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1). In all other cases, the

plaintiff must apply to the Court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). The Court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine damages unless all the essential evidence is already in the record. See S.E.C. v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005) (“We have held that no such hearing is required where all essential evidence is already of record.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) (“The court may conduct hearings.”).

1 In the alternative to the breach of contract claim, QC Construction asserts claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 17-26. Because the Court finds that Cypress breached the construction contract and violated § 13-11-3 of the Georgia Prompt Payment Act, the Court declines to address QC Construction’s quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims. See Continental Cas. Co. v. Trucks, Inc., 2011 WL 5325537, at *2 n.2 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 2011) (“Because the Court grants default judgment as to the breach of contract claims, the Court does not need to consider Plaintiffs’ alternative unjust enrichment and account stated claims.”). After the Clerk’s entry of default, a defendant is deemed to have admitted all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint. Nishimatsu Const. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975).2 However, an entry of default against the defendant does not establish that the plaintiff is entitled to a default

judgment. The defendant is not deemed to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or conclusions of law. Id. “The Court must consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since the party in default does not admit a mere conclusion of law. In considering any default judgment, the Court must consider (1) jurisdiction, (2) liability, and (3) damages.” Johnson v. Rammage, 2007 WL 2276847, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2007) (citing Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1356 (S.D. Ga. 2004)). The defendant is also not deemed to admit the plaintiff’s allegations relating to the amount of damages. Patray v. Nw. Publ’g, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 865, 869 (S.D. Ga. 1996); see also Anheuser Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2003) (“A court has an obligation to assure that there is a legitimate

basis for any damage award it enters.”). III. JURISDICTION To enter a valid default judgment, the Court must have both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Rash v. Rash, 173 F.3d 1376, 1381 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovskiy, 242 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 2001) (“When entry of default is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, the district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction both over the subject matter and the parties.”). QC Construction alleges sufficient facts to

2 The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981). demonstrate the Court has diversity jurisdiction over its state law claims against Cypress. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, QC Construction is an LLC whose members reside in Georgia, and Cypress is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. Docs. 1 ¶¶ 1-2; 6; 39 ¶ 2; 39-1; 41. QC Construction alleges the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Docs. 1 at 7; 41 ¶ 8. Additionally, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Cypress. Personal jurisdiction can be either general or specific. General jurisdiction exists whenever the defendant is at home in the forum state. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014). Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, must arise out of the events or transactions underlying the claim that form the basis of the lawsuit. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283-84 (2014). In other words, for specific jurisdiction to be proper, “the defendant must have ‘purposefully availed’ itself of the privilege of conducting activities—that is, purposefully establishing contacts—in the forum state and there must be a sufficient nexus between those contacts and the

litigation.” Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010).

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

QC CONSTRUCTION LLC v. CYPRESS CONTRACTING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP, (M.D. Ga. 2023).

QC CONSTRUCTION LLC v. CYPRESS CONTRACTING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP (QC CONSTRUCTION LLC v. CYPRESS CONTRACTING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anheuser-Busch v. Irvin P. Philpot, III
317 F.3d 1264 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Smyth
420 F.3d 1225 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama
661 F.2d 1206 (Eleventh Circuit, 1981)
Joseph J. Rash v. Joann H. Rash
173 F.3d 1376 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)
Patray v. Northwest Publishing, Inc.
931 F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Georgia, 1996)
Pitts Ex Rel. Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc.
321 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Georgia, 2004)
Daimler AG v. Bauman
134 S. Ct. 746 (Supreme Court, 2014)
Walden v. Fiore
134 S. Ct. 1115 (Supreme Court, 2014)
SAWS AT SEVEN HILLS, LLC v. FORESTAR REALTY, INC.
805 S.E.2d 270 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017)
Benchmark Builders, Inc. v. Schultz
751 S.E.2d 45 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2013)