United States District Court, D. New Jersey
H. DOTO LAULETTA BIRNBAUM, LLC, On behalf of Plaintiff No
appearances were entered on behalf of Defendants
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
before the Court is Plaintiff ScaVet Technologies, LLC's
Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Davis-Paige
Management Systems, LLC (“DPMS”) and Michael E.P.
Davis. For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Default
Judgment will be granted.
Court takes its facts from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
DPMS was the general contractor on a project for the United
States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
Davis is the President and Chief Executive Officer of DPMS.
DPMS was to provide support services for logistics and
infrastructure, operations, and maintenance at the DHS
Transportation Security Laboratory in Atlantic City, New
Jersey. On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff entered into a
Subcontract with DPMS, where Plaintiff agreed to provide
certain services for the project. The value of the
Subcontract was $2, 960, 756.40 over five years. The
Subcontract provided for payment within ten calendars days
after the receipt of payment from the government.
with the Subcontract, Plaintiff performed all of its work for
DPMS, which was accepted by Defendants. DPMS has received
payment by the government, but DPMS has failed to pay
Plaintiff for its work. This resulted in a payment dispute
between Plaintiff and DPMS culminating in a March 25, 2016
letter agreement (the “Agreement”). Under the
Agreement, DPMS agreed to pay all invoices in arrears in an
amount that totaled $117, 815.53. The Agreement provided for
monthly payments. DPMS failed to comply with the payment
terms of the Agreement.
on May 9, 2017, Plaintiff, DPMS, and Davis entered into a
Settlement Agreement, governed by the laws of New Jersey, in
which the terms of the Subcontractor and the March 25, 2016
Agreement were reaffirmed. The Settlement Agreement provided
for payment in the amount of $121, 934.47, plus interest. The
Settlement Agreement provided that various events would
constitute events of default, including nonpayment of any
payments. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the
Settlement Agreement provided that the entire unpaid
Settlement Amount would become due and payable. DPMS and
Davis have failed to make a single payment under the
Settlement Agreement. Defendants owe a total of $121, 934.47,
plus interest, fees, and costs.
filed a November 10, 2017 Amended Complaint asserting six
counts: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit, (4) violation of the Federal
Prompt Payment Act, (5) violation of the New Jersey Prompt
Payment Act, and (6) writ of replevin. Both Defendants were
served on November 15, 2017.
December 8, 2017, Plaintiff requested an entry of default
against Defendants. The Clerk entered default against
Defendants on December 8, 2017. On February 5, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Plaintiff is a limited liability company whose
sole member is a citizen of the State of New Jersey.
Defendant Davis-Paige Management Systems, LLC is a limited
liability company whose individual members are citizens of
Virginia. Defendant Davis is an individual domiciled in
Virginia. Accordingly, as the parties are diverse and
Plaintiff pleads an amount in controversy in excess of $75,
000, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Standard for Default Judgment
Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) authorizes courts to enter a
default judgment against a properly served defendant who
fails to file a timely responsive pleading.”
Chanel, Inc. v. Gordashevsky, 558 F.Supp.2d 532, 535
(D.N.J. 2008) (citing Anchorage Assocs. v. V.I. Bd. of
Tax Rev., 922 F.2d 168, 177 n.9 (3d Cir. 1990)).
“The entry of a default judgment is largely a matter of
judicial discretion, although the Third Circuit has
emphasized that such ‘discretion is not without limits,
however, and we repeatedly state our ...