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.

Scavet Technologies, LLC v. Davis-Paige Management Systems, LLC

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

May 8, 2018

SCAVET TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVIS-PAIGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, LLC and MICHAEL E.P. DAVIS, Defendants.

          STEVEN H. DOTO LAULETTA BIRNBAUM, LLC, On behalf of Plaintiff No appearances were entered on behalf of Defendants

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Pending 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.

         I. Essential Facts

         The 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.

         Consistent 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.

         Thereafter, 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.

         II. Procedural Posture

         Plaintiff 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.

         On 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.

         III. Jurisdiction

         This 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. § 1332.

         IV. Standard for Default Judgment

         “Federal 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 ...


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.