Opinion
Civil Action 3:21-cv-01901
05-03-2022
BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH SHEPHERD, Defendant.
MANNION, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a state law breach of contract action, brought in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The plaintiff has filed proof of service indicating that the defendant was served with a summons and the complaint on November 13, 2021. Default was entered against the non-appearing defendant on December 21, 2021, and the plaintiff has moved for default judgment. (Doc. 11.)
Based upon our review of the record of this case-including the verified complaint and attached exhibits (Doc. 1), the motion for default judgment and attached exhibit (Doc. 11), and the defendant's proposed order-we find the amount of the plaintiff's claim to be well-founded in the documentary proof submitted by the plaintiff in support of its verified complaint, and thus we find no need for a hearing on the matter. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to entry of default judgment in the amount requested.
The proposed order was submitted by email, rather than being filed on the docket. A copy is attached to this report and recommendation.
Accordingly, it is recommended that:
1. The motion for default judgment (Doc. 11) be GRANTED;
2. The Clerk be directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant: for damages in the sum of $380,048.53; together with prejudgment interest of $77,826.44 as of December 13, 2021, plus a per diem prejudgment interest rate of $190.02 for every day after December 13, 2021, through the date when judgment is entered; together with reasonable attorney fees of $2,984, costs of suit of $554.25, and post-judgment interest at the federal statutory rate calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1961; and
3. The Clerk be directed to mark this case as CLOSED.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated May 3, 2022. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.