SOUTHSTATE BANK NA v. F-5 VENTURES INC

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia
DecidedOctober 30, 2024
Docket5:24-cv-00194
StatusUnknown

This text of SOUTHSTATE BANK NA v. F-5 VENTURES INC (SOUTHSTATE BANK NA v. F-5 VENTURES INC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
SOUTHSTATE BANK NA v. F-5 VENTURES INC, (M.D. Ga. 2024).

Opinion

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

SOUTHSTATE BANK, N.A., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-194 (MTT) ) F-5 VENTURES, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER Plaintiff SouthState Bank, National Association, as successor by merger to Atlantic Capital Bank, National Association (“SouthState”) has moved for default judgment against defendants F-5 Ventures, Inc. (“F-5”), Gregory Robbins, and Shannon Robbins. Doc. 15. For the following reasons, that motion (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND The allegations of the complaint are deemed admitted because of the defendants’ default and establish the following. On or about December 15, 2021, F-5 executed and delivered to SouthState a Note made payable by F-5 Ventures, Inc. the order of Atlantic Capital Bank, N.A., who later merged with SouthState, in the principal amount of $2,152,000.00 (the “Note”). Doc. 3 ¶ 10. The Note was secured by a U.S. Small Business Administration Security Agreement executed by F-5 in favor of SouthState, signed and dated December 15, 2021. Id. ¶ 11. The Note was further secured by UCC Financing Statements recorded December 22, 2021. Id. ¶ 12. In connection with the Note and as inducement therefor, Gregory Robbins executed and delivered to SouthState an unconditional guarantee dated December 15, 2021 (the “G. Robbins Guaranty”), which unconditionally guarantees the full and prompt payment of all obligations owed by F-5 to SouthState under the Note. Id. ¶ 13.

Likewise, in connection with the Note and as inducement therefore, Shannon Robbins executed and delivered to SouthState an unconditional limited guarantee dated December 15, 2021 (the “S. Robbins Guaranty”), which unconditionally guarantees the full and prompt payment of obligations owed by F-5 to SouthState under the Note. Id. ¶ 14. The S. Robbins Guaranty is limited to the amount SouthState obtains from certain collateral pledged by Shannon Robbins. Id. The Note and Guaranty, together with all other documents evidencing or securing the Loan, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Loan Documents.” The Note stipulates that it is an event of default if F-5 fails to make payments when due. Docs. 3 ¶ 17; 3-1 ¶ 4. The defendants failed to make timely payment of all

amounts owed under the Loan Documents, and therefore defaulted. Doc. 3 ¶ 18. All conditions precedent to SouthState’s recovery under the Loan Documents have been satisfied. Id. ¶ 31. On or about March 11, 2024, SouthState’s attorney sent a letter to the defendants declaring defendants in default and declaring that the unpaid indebtedness owed under the Loan Documents had been accelerated and was immediately due and payable (the “Notice of Default”). Id. ¶ 21. Despite demand, the defendants have failed to pay SouthState the amount owed. Id. ¶ 22. As of June 20, 2024, the total amount owed by Defendants under the Loan Documents, excluding attorneys’ fees and other costs of collection, was principal in the amount of $1,896,520.46, plus accrued and unpaid interest in the amount of $151,396.88, plus late fees and other charges in the amount of $12,166.24, for a total

amount of $2,060,083.58. Id. ¶ 26. Pursuant to the Loan Documents, F-5 and Gregory Robbins agreed to pay all expenses incurred by SouthState in the collection of the amounts owed under the Note, including reasonable attorney fees and costs. Id. ¶ 27; Doc. 3-1 at 4. In the Notice of Default, SouthState gave F-5 and Gregory Robbins written notice of its intention to enforce the provisions in the Loan Documents relative to attorney fees in compliance with O.C.G.A. §13-1-11. Doc. 3 ¶ 27. More than ten days have passed since the date of the F-5 and Gregory Robbins’ receipt of such notice. Id. On June 21, 2024, SouthState filed this action alleging breach of contract and attorney fees and costs. Doc. 1. As of the date of filing its complaint, SouthState has

not received payment from F-5, Gregory Robbins, or Shannon Robbins. Id. ¶ 23-25. After the defendants were served on July 18, 2024 (Docs. 9; 10; 11), the defendants failed to file an answer or otherwise appear in this case. SouthState requested entry of default, which was granted on October 2, 2024. See Doc. 14. SouthState now moves for entry of Default Judgment against F-5, Gregory Robbins, and Shannon Robbins pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Doc. 15. 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[.]”). 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).1 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, because 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

1 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). 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

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

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)
Termnet Merchant Services, Inc. v. Phillips
588 S.E.2d 745 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2003)
Pitts Ex Rel. Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc.
321 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Georgia, 2004)
Trendmark Homes, Inc. v. Bank of North Georgia
726 S.E.2d 138 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Annon Consulting, Inc. v. Bionitrogen Holdings Corp.
650 F. App'x 729 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
SAWS AT SEVEN HILLS, LLC v. FORESTAR REALTY, INC.
805 S.E.2d 270 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2017)
Austin v. Bank of America, N.A.
743 S.E.2d 399 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
SOUTHSTATE BANK NA v. F-5 VENTURES INC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southstate-bank-na-v-f-5-ventures-inc-gamd-2024.