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.

AUtomotive Rentals, Inc. v. Bama Commercial Leasing LLC

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

March 26, 2018

AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
BAMA COMMERCIAL LEASING LL C and AUTO TRAKK LLC, Defendants.

          EDWARD J. KELLEHER ARCHER & GREINER, PC On behalf of Plaintiff.

          ANDREW L. UNTERLACK EISENBERG, GOLD & AGRAWAL, P.C. On behalf of Defendant Auto Trakk LLC.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         No appearances were entered on behalf of Defendant BAMA Commercial Leasing LLC

         Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Automotive Rentals, Inc.'s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant BAMA Commercial Leasing LLC (BAMA). For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Default Judgment will be granted.

         I. Essential Facts

         Plaintiff's February 23, 2018 Amended Complaint pleads as follows. Plaintiff entered into a Fleet Management Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) with BAMA on November 13, 2015. Under the Agreement, BAMA engaged Plaintiff to register and maintain vehicle license plates with the appropriate tolling authorities so that Plaintiff could pay the associated tolls, which would then be passed through to BAMA for payment. Plaintiff billed on a monthly basis for all amounts due. BAMA agreed to pay and agreed to a late payment penalty in the amount of up to 1.5% per month.

         BAMA was notified of its default in payments due to Plaintiff. Pursuant to invoices issued by Plaintiff, BAMA owes $355, 708.11, plus interest and attorneys' fees, after issuance of a credit of $11, 722.09.

         II. Procedural Posture

         Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court on May 31, 2017. The complaint asserts five counts: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, (3) book account, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) quantum meruit.

         BAMA was served on June 2, 2017, but BAMA has not entered an appearance in this matter. Plaintiff filed a request for an entry of default against BAMA on June 27, 2017, which was entered by the Clerk of the Court on June 28, 2017. Plaintiff filed its Motion for Default Judgment on August 11, 2017.

         This Court entered a February 9, 2018 Order to Show Cause, finding Plaintiff's complaint did not properly plead the citizenship of Defendants. Plaintiff subsequently filed a February 23, 2018 Amended Complaint. This Amended Complaint was filed after entry of default and the filing of the Motion for Default Judgment, but prior to this Court rendering a decision on the Motion for Default Judgment. The Court found the Clerk's entry of default on the original complaint was rendered moot since the Amended Complaint superseded the original complaint.

         The Court entered a March 9, 2018 Order directing the Clerk of the Court vacate the entry of default against BAMA. The Court further ordered the Clerk of the Court to enter default on the Amended Complaint against BAMA after the filing of the March 9, 2018 Order.[1] The Court ordered Plaintiff to refile its Affidavit of Amount Due consistent with the damages allegations. Plaintiff filed its amended Affidavit on March 23, 2018.

         III. ...


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.