Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-1440
12-23-2011
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD DORMAN, JR., Defendant.
Judge Cathy Bissoon
ORDER
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 7), which the Court construes as an unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment, will be granted, and judgment will be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $89,624.51.
See Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Hillis, 2007 WL 1276905, *1 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2007) ("Rule 55 does not operate well in the context of a motion to confirm or vacate an arbitration award," and "the [p]etition and accompanying record should be treated like a motion for summary judgment and, when the respondent fails to answer, like an unopposed motion for summary judgment") (citation to quoted source omitted).
The Court has jurisdiction over this case based on diversity of citizenship. See Compl. (Doc. 1) at ¶ 4. Consistent with the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant submitted to arbitration through a signed agreement. See Doc. 1-2. The agreement stated that the parties voluntarily consented to "the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction which may properly enter . . . judgment" on the arbitration award. Id.
An arbitration award was entered on November 12, 2010, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, in the amount of $89,624.51. See Doc. 1-3 at pg. 4 of 6. There is no indication: that the arbitration award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; that there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators; that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct; or that there was any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. See generally Choice Hotels Int'l., Inc. v. Savannah Shakti Corp., 2011 WL 5118328, *3-4 (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2011) (citing standards of review applicable under Federal Arbitration Act).
For all of these reasons, Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7) is GRANTED, and judgment will be entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $89,624.51.
Although Defendants' proposed judgment order seeks pre-judgment interest in the amount of $5,863.65, see Doc. 7-1 at ¶ 3, that sum was not included in the Complaint. See Choice Hotels, 2011 WL 5118328 at *2 ("where a complaint specifies the amount of damages sought, the plaintiff is limited to entry of a default judgment in that amount . . . . because the defendant could not reasonably have expected that his damages would exceed [the specified] amount") (citation to quoted source omitted). The Court would note, however, that Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest by operation of law. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)).
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge
cc (via ECF email notification): All Counsel of Record