Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ile-De-France v. Lancaster International, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. New York

June 10, 2015

GALLOO ILE-DE-FRANCE, Plaintiff,
v.
LANCASTER INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant.

THE CIRIC LAW FIRM, PLLC PIERRE CIRIC, ESQ., New York, New York, Attorney for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

MAE A. D'AGOSTINO, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 30, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action alleging, among other things, that Defendant Lancaster International, LLC ("Lancaster") knowingly made material misrepresentations with the intent of inducing Groupe Dupuy, a company which has since become a subsidiary of Plaintiff, to pay Defendant Lancaster invoices for a total amount of 447, 353.50 Euros for shipments of containers of scrap metal which never took place, and referred to container numbers which did not exist. Plaintiff is seeking relief in the form of compensatory damages, consequential damages, attorney's fees and costs incurred by bringing this action.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against Defendant Lancaster.

II. BACKGROUND

On July 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed with the Court an affidavit of service, attesting that the summons and complaint were properly served on Defendant Lancaster on July 2, 2014, through the New York State Secretary of State. See Dkt. No. 9. Defendant Lancaster failed to respond to the complaint or otherwise appear in this action.

On January 4, 2015, Plaintiff requested that the Clerk of the Court enter a certificate of entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 55.1. See Dkt. No. 29. On January 7, 2015 the Clerk of the Court entered the requested default. See Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiff now asks the Court for entry of default judgment against Defendant Lancaster. See Dkt. No. 31.

III. DISCUSSION

"Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides a two-step process that the Court must follow before it may enter a default judgment against a defendant.'" United States v. Simmons, No. 5:10-CV-1272, 2008 WL 685498, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2012) (quoting Robertson v. Doe, No. 05-CV-7046, 2008 WL 2519894, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2008)). "First, under Rule 55(a), when a party fails to "plead or otherwise defend... the clerk must enter the party's default.'"" Id. (quotation omitted); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). "Second, pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), the party seeking default is required to present its application for entry of judgment to the court.'" Id. (quotation omitted). "Notice of the application must be sent to the defaulting party so that it has an opportunity to show cause why the court should not enter a default judgment.'" Id. (quotation omitted); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2).

"When a default is entered, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all of the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint pertaining to liability." Bravado Int'l Group Merch. Servs. v. Ninna, Inc., 655 F.Supp.2d 177, 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992)). "While a default judgment constitutes an admission of liability, the quantum of damages remains to be established by proof unless the amount is liquidated or susceptible of mathematical computation." Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974) (citations omitted); see also Bravado Int'l, 655 F.Supp.2d at 189-90 (citation omitted). "[E]ven upon default, a court may not rubber-stamp the non-defaulting party's damages calculation, but rather must ensure that there is a basis for the damages that are sought." Overcash v. United Abstract Group, Inc., 549 F.Supp.2d 193, 196 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999)). "The burden is on the plaintiff to establish its entitlement to recovery." Bravado Int'l, 655 F.Supp.2d at 189 (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc., 973 F.2d at 158). "While the court must ensure that there is a basis for the damages specified in a default judgment, it may, but need not, make the determination through a hearing.'" Id. at 190 (quotation omitted).

In the present matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an entry of default judgment against Defendant Lancaster. Defendant Lancaster have not answered or otherwise responded to Plaintiff's summons and complaint and the time allotted to do so has expired. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a). Moreover, in conformity with Local Rule 55.2, Plaintiff has amply demonstrated that Defendant Lancaster is not in military service, an infant or an incompetent, and that the party was properly served under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 31-1; N.Y.N.D. L.R. 55.2(a). Further, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that they are entitled to relief under both the common law and claims brought pursuant to N.Y. U.C.C. § 7-601. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden and is entitled to an entry of default judgment as to liability.

Damages may be awarded in a default judgment where plaintiff's complaint is for a sum certain. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(1). "A sum certain is a sum which is susceptible to reliable computation or determined by the court after an accounting." Insurance Co. of North America v. S/S "Hellenic Challenger", 88 F.R.D. 545, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (citations omitted). A hearing to determine damages is left to the sound discretion of the court. See Fustok v. Conticommodity Services, Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989). The court may rely solely on "detailed affidavits and documentary evidence" for purposes of evaluating the sum of damages, as it does in the current case. Id.; see also Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., 951 F.2d 504, 508 (2d Cir. 1991); see also Oy Saimaa Lines Logistics Ltd. v. Mozaica-New York, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 87, 89 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). Although punitive damages are recoverable, the courts have found that "their amount cannot be fixed without an evidentiary hearing." Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974) (citations omitted); Kuruwa v. Meyers, 512 Fed.Appx. 45, 48 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). However, consequential damages are recoverable without an evidentiary hearing when they are "naturally flowing from a fraud [and are] limited to that which is necessary to restore a party to the position occupied before the commission of the fraud." Alpert v. Shea Gould Climenko & Casey, 160 A.D.2d 67, 71-72 (1st Dep't 1990) (citations omitted). Although the recovery of tax penalties are often speculative, they are recoverable as consequential damages when they are susceptible to reasonable computation and naturally flowing from the defendant's conduct. See Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413, 422-23(1996); Lewis v. Desmond, 187 A.D.2d 797, 799-800 (3d Dep't 1992).

Prejudgment interest is recoverable on damages awarded, and on claims of common law fraud. See Mallis v. Bankers Trust Co., 717 F.2d 683, 694 (2d Cir. 1983); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5001(a). Additionally, "[i]nterest shall be at the rate of nine per centum per annum, except where otherwise provided by statute." N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004. Reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded to the plaintiff where there has been "[d]eceptive acts or practices in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.