Opinion
2:17-CV-00807-CB
07-11-2022
WASHINGTON COUNTY FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. RNN ENTERTAINMENT INC, ROMEL MARCUS, DERRICK ROBINSON, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, MING AND SONS, LLC, GOODLIFE ENTERTAINMENT L.L.C., JOHN WARDLOWJR., THE RTD GROUP, LLC, OLUREMI DARAMOLA, SHANE A. HALLS, Defendants,
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
I. RECOMMENDATION
On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff Washington County Family Entertainment, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Derrick Robinson (“Robinson”). (ECF No. 237). After careful review of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (ECF No. 164), the Request for entry of Default (ECF No. 174), and the Motion for Default Judgment, together with the exhibits attached thereto, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be granted and the Order set forth below regarding damages be entered against Robinson.
II. REPORT
A. Procedural and Factual Background
Plaintiff is a limited liability company and the master tenant of the Washington Wild Things Park (“the Park”). Defendants are individuals and organizations that Plaintiff contends played a part in an ongoing conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of money Plaintiff remitted in its efforts to secure several hip-hop artists to perform at the Park. In the SAC, Plaintiff contended that “in 2009 and 2010, Robinson [] stole approximately $225,000.00 from a concert investor by falsely representing to him that they were affiliated with the agents for the artist Taylor Swift.” SAC (ECF No. 164) at ¶ 23. Robinson was subsequently prosecuted and convicted in a criminal action for that conduct. Id. at ¶ 24. With respect to the instant action, Plaintiff's contended that Robinson participated in a similar scheme with respect to Plaintiff. See id. at ¶¶ 2-18. According to Plaintiff, Robinson, along with his co-conspirators, “posed as booking agents and related associates for various music artists, including those with stage names Wiz Khalifa, Lil Uzi Vert, Migos, Skrillex and Rick Ross. The Co-Conspirators fraudulently induced [Plaintiff] to transmit interstate wire transfers to them, $259,500.00 of which the Co-Conspirators have stolen.” Pl.'s Br. (ECF No. 238) at 2. “The stolen monies tendered by [Plaintiff] were shared among, laundered and dissipated by the Co-Conspirators. In addition, [Plaintiff] incurred substantial expenses to market, promote, stage, produce and otherwise prepare for the fraudulently scheduled concerts.” Id.
Thus, on June 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court. (ECF No. 1). The SAC alleged counts against Robinson for “(1) violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and §1962(d) (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)); (2) fraudulent misrepresentation; (3) conversion; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) civil conspiracy.” Pl.'s Br. (ECF No. 238) at 2 (citing SAC (ECF No. 164)). Robinson was served on June 27, 2017. (ECF No. 7).
On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment against Robinson. (ECF No. 174). On September 26, 2019, the Clerk of Courts entered a default judgment against Robinson. (ECF No. 175). On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of a default judgment against Robinson, and brief in support thereof, requesting this Court enter a default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) for monetary damages of $1,499,615.82, attorney's fees and costs or $470,273.53, and post-judgment interest. (ECF Nos. 237, 238). No party filed a brief in response to this motion; thus, it is ripe for disposition.
B. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) provides that a district court may enter default judgment against a party when a default has been entered by the Clerk of Court. Entry of default judgment is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court. Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir. 1984). In determining whether to grant a default judgment, courts examine three factors: 1) prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied; 2) whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense; and 3) whether the defendant's delay is due to culpable conduct. Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000). “[T]he factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). See also Stout Street Funding LLC v. Johnson, 2014 WL 5591043 *2 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 4, 2014).
C. Analysis
Plaintiff has satisfied all of the requirements necessary to obtain a default judgment against Robinson. It has shown that (1) the Complaint was personally served upon Robinson (ECF No. 7); (2) Robinson has not filed an answer; (3) default was entered against Robinson by the clerk of court (ECF No. 175); (4) Robinson is not an infant, incompetent, or in the military service of the United States of America. In addition, Plaintiff has also shown with specificity how it calculated the amount of the judgment. See Pl.'s Br. (ECF No. 238) at 14-16.
On September 13, 2017, Robinson filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and brief in support thereof. (ECF Nos. 27, 28). According to Robinson, this action should have been brought in New York. That motion was denied on December 6, 2017. (ECF No. 57). Robinson was ordered to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint on or before December 29, 2017. (ECF No. 59). Robinson filed an Answer on December 29, 2017. (ECF No. 66). Subsequently, on August 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the SAC. (ECF No 164). Robinson was properly served on September 6, 2019. (ECF No. 172). Robinson did not file an Answer, otherwise respond to the SAC, or participate further in this action.
The court has considered the Chamberlain factors and finds that the prejudice to the Plaintiff resulting from the Robinson's conduct, together with the apparent absence of a litigable defense, weighs in favor of the court granting default judgment. Further, Robinson's default was a result of his culpable conduct as evidenced by his failing to respond to the SAC. See World Entertainment Inc. v. Brown, 487 Fed.Appx. 758, 762 (3d Cir. 2012). Consequently, default judgment is appropriate.
A consequence of the entry of a default judgment is that “the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” 10A Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d, § 2688 at 58-59 (1998); see also Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U.S. 104 (1885). If the damages are not for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2); see also Comdyne I, Inc., 908 F.2d at 1149. The Court may proceed by live testimony, affidavit or other appropriate evidence. International Longshoreman's Ass'n AFL-CIO v. Spear, Wilderman, Borish, Endy, Spear & Runckel, 995 F.Supp. 564, 573 (E.D. Pa. 1998); see also Durant v. Husband, 28 F.3d 12, 15 (3d Cir. 1994).
Here, Plaintiff has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, including all relevant documents, declarations, proofs of service and verification of all relevant documents, an adequate basis to substantiate the requested damages. Specifically, Defendants did not return a total of $259,500.00 that Plaintiff had wired to accounts held by Defendants. Pl.'s Br. (ECF No. 238) at 15. In addition, Plaintiff incurred additional internal and external costs of $102,472.32. Id. As discussed supra, because Plaintiff has satisfied the elements of its RICO claims, Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Id. Treble damages increase this total to $1,085,916.96. Id. In addition, Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to an award of attorneys' fees of $470,273.53. See Declaration of Ryan James (ECF No. 237-2). Thus, in total, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $1,556,190.49 plus post-judgment interest.
As discussed in this Court's Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment against Defendants Marcus and Halls be granted (ECF No. 268), this Court respectfully recommended that the summary judgment be granted in favor of Plaintiff on Plaintiff's RICO claims. Thus, the recommended damages and order include the damages associated with such a claim. Similarly, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Marcus and Halls on the remaining claims in the SAC. (ECF No. 265). Moreover, the damages in this case are consistent with the District Court's prior order granting a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants RNN, Ming, Goodlife, Wardlow, RTD, and Daramola. (ECF No. 130). Moreover, Robinson has not submitted any opposition to these amounts, and therefore a hearing on the issue of damages is not necessary.
Plaintiff also asserts it is entitled to mitigation losses of $173,185.62. Pl.'s Br. (ECF No. 238) at 15; Declaration of Stuart Williams (ECF No. 237-1) at ¶ 7. Plaintiff did not include this amount in its November 29, 2018, motion for default judgment against other Defendants. (ECF Nos. 125, 130). Nor does Plaintiff explain how these dollars were incurred or calculated. Thus, this Court respectfully recommends not including them in the total at this time.
The statute provides that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee...” 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
As of January 3, 2019, this amount was $231,136.14. (ECF No. 130). The additional attorneys' fees represent fees from that time through December 3, 2021.
Thus, based upon the undisputed facts and the evidence presented through the pleadings, it is respectfully recommended that the Order which follows be entered:
AND NOW, to wit, this day of, 2022, after consideration of the foregoing
Motion for Default Judgment, heretofore filed by Plaintiff, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment by Default is hereby entered against Defendant Robinson, for failure to answer and in favor of Plaintiff, as follows:
1. A final judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Robinson, jointly and severally with other Defendants, in the amount of $1,085,916.96;
2. Plaintiff shall be awarded post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate against Robinson, jointly and severally with other Defendants, from the date the judgment is entered; and
3. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees and costs against Robinson, jointly and severally with other Defendants, in the amount of $470,273.53.
D. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment be granted and the foregoing order be entered by the District Court.
Any party is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Plaintiff, because he is a non-electronically registered party, may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation by July 28, 2022 and Defendants, because they are electronically registered parties, may file written objections by July 25, 2022. The parties are cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011).