Walker v. Innovative Concept Solutions International, Inc.

6 F. Supp. 3d 52, 2013 WL 6184448, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168461
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedNovember 27, 2013
DocketCivil Action No. 2012-2046
StatusPublished

This text of 6 F. Supp. 3d 52 (Walker v. Innovative Concept Solutions 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.

Bluebook
Walker v. Innovative Concept Solutions International, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 52, 2013 WL 6184448, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168461 (D.D.C. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Chaneel Walker and Gail Alston (“Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint in the above-captioned action on December 20, 2012, against Defendants Innovative Concept Solutions International, Inc. (“ICSI”) and Lorraine Thomas (“Thomas”). See Compl., ECF No. [1]. By Order dated May 29, 2013, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against Thomas, leaving only Plaintiffs’ claims against ICSI. See Order (May 29, 2013), ECF No. [13]. On June 18, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment on the basis that ICSI had not answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint nor appeared in court. In an Order entered July 3, 2013, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to specify each element of damages, or the monetary amount thereof, that Plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to recover from ICSI, and failed to include evidentiary support for its damages claims. See Order (July 3, 2013), ECF No. [18]. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment. See ECF No. [19]. For the reasons stated below, the Court again DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 18, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an initial Motion for Default Judgment. See ECF No. [17]. Plaintiffs’ Motion did not specify each element of damages, or the monetary amount thereof, that Plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to recover from ICSI, nor did it include evidentiary support for its damages claims. The Court *54 noted that although Plaintiffs’ Complaint attached as exhibits what appeared to be documents supporting some of their claims, Plaintiffs’ Motion made no effort to tie those documents to any legal arguments to support their claims. As the Court had insufficient information on which to make an independent determination of the sum to be awarded, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion. See Order (July 3, 2018), ECF No. [18]. In its Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Court also expressed concern over whether ICSI presently exists as a corporate entity against whom Plaintiffs may obtain relief. The Court noted that Plaintiffs’ Complaint stated that ICSI’s status as a stock corporation had been forfeited by the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation. The Court requested Plaintiffs provide additional information about the corporate status of ICSI and confirm that ICSI was not presently in bankruptcy proceedings. Finally, the Court requested Plaintiffs provide documentary proof that Victor Mbakpuo, whom Plaintiffs represent is the registered agent for ICSI, is, in fact ICSI’s registered agent.

On July 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the present [19] Amended Motion for Default Judgment.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides that the Clerk of the Court must enter a party’s request for 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). After a default has been entered by the Clerk, a party may move the court for a default judgment. Fed. R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). “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)).

Upon entry of default by the clerk of the court, the “defaulting defendant is deemed to admit every well-pleaded allegation in the complaint.” Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. R.W. Amrine Drywall Co. Inc., 239 F.Supp.2d 26, 30 (D.D.C.2002) (internal citation omitted). “Although the default establishes a defendant’s liability, the court is required to make an independent determination of the sum to be awarded unless the amount of damages is certain.” Id. (citing Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F.Supp.2d 15, 17 (D.D.C.2001)). Accordingly, when moving for a default judgment, the plaintiff must prove its entitlement to the amount of monetary damages requested. Id. “In ruling on such a motion, the court may rely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence to determine the appropriate sum for the default judgment.” Id. (citing United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir.1979)).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs entirely fail to provide the Court any of the additional information the Court specifically requested in its July 3, 2013, Order. See ECF No. [18]. Plaintiffs do not even address, much less provide any information explaining the impact of, ICSI’s current corporate status and whether ICSI is in bankruptcy proceedings. This information is critical to the Court’s ability to resolve this matter as it may directly impact Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain relief. If ICSI is currently in bankruptcy proceedings, the present suit would be automatically stayed pending the resolution of those proceedings. Moreover, *55 the Court presently does not have sufficient facts from which to determine whether a judgment can be entered against ICSI for its failure to pay wages after forfeiting its corporate status. Accordingly, the Court requests Plaintiffs provide a legal briefing on whether ICSI’s forfeited corporate status affects the ability of the Court to enter a judgment against ICSI.

Plaintiffs also failed to provide any documentary proof that Victor Mbakpuo is in fact the registered agent for ICSI as well as documentation of Mr. Mbakpuo’s current address. The Court understands from the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation Business Entity Database that Mr. Mbakpuo is indeed the registered agent for ICSI. See http://sdateert 3.resiusa.org/uce-charter/searchByName_ a.aspx?mode=name. However, the address for Mr. Mbakpuo listed in the Maryland database and the address listed in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Summons, and Certificate of Service are not the same. 1 The Court is concerned that Mr. Mbakpuo has not been properly served nor received Plaintiffs’ subsequent pleadings. Knowing whether Plaintiffs’ Complaint was properly served on ICSI’s registered agent is crucial to the Court’s ability to fairly adjudicate this default judgment claim. Thus, the Court renews its request that Plaintiffs provide documentation of Mr.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 F. Supp. 3d 52, 2013 WL 6184448, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-innovative-concept-solutions-international-inc-dcd-2013.