Case 1:20-cv-01342-MN Document 19 Filed 04/19/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 83
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No. 20-1342-MN
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`GODADDY MEDIA TEMPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANEXIO DATA CENTERS, LLC and
`DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`Presently before the court is plaintiff GoDaddy Media Temple Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion
`
`for entry of judgment by default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). (D.I. 15)
`
`For the following reasons, I recommend that the court GRANT Plaintiff’s motion and enter a
`
`default judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1,139,827.80.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On October 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action alleging causes of action for breach of
`
`contract, account stated, book account, and unjust enrichment against defendant Anexio Data
`
`Centers, LLC (“Defendant”) relating to Defendant’s failure to provide services due to Plaintiff
`
`under a Master Services Agreement (the “MSA”). (D.I. 2 at ¶¶ 13–26; D.I. 4) Plaintiff served
`
`the summons and complaint upon Defendant on October 21, 2020 (D.I. 6), and on October 28,
`
`2020, the summons was returned executed by Defendant. (D.I. 9) Defendant failed to file and
`
`serve a timely responsive pleading or motion as required under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure.
`
`On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default in appearance
`
`pursuant to Rule 55(a). (D.I. 10) The court ordered Plaintiff to serve a copy of its request for
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01342-MN Document 19 Filed 04/19/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 84
`
`entry of default on Defendant and to file proof of such service once made (D.I. 11), which
`
`Plaintiff did on December 14, 2020. (D.I. 12) On January 11, 2021, the Clerk of Court entered
`
`the default in appearance against Defendant pursuant to Rule 55(a) (the “Entry of Default in
`
`Appearance”). (D.I. 13) Plaintiff served the Entry of Default in Appearance on Defendant
`
`through Defendant’s registered agent on January 13, 2021 and January 26, 2021. (D.I. 14)
`
`On March 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default judgment pursuant to
`
`Rule 55(b)(2). (D.I. 15) On March 24, 2021, the court ordered Plaintiff to serve a copy of its
`
`motion on Defendant and to file proof of such service once made (D.I. 16), which Plaintiff did on
`
`March 26, 2021. (D.I. 17)
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The entry of a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is a two-step
`
`process: (1) the entry of a default by the Clerk of Court against a party that “has failed to plead or
`
`otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), and
`
`(2) entry of default judgment by the Clerk if the “plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum
`
`that can be made certain by computation” or otherwise by the court upon plaintiff’s application.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1)–(2). A party who defaults by failing to plead or defend admits the
`
`allegations in the complaint related to the claims, but does not admit the allegations in the
`
`complaint as to the amount of damages.1 See J & J Sports Prod., Inc. v. Kim, C.A. No. 14-1170-
`
`
`1 “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow but do not require the district court to conduct a
`hearing on damages as long as there is a basis for the damages specified in a default judgment. . .
`. [T]he requirement of a hearing on damages is subject to an exception where the amount
`claimed is a liquidated sum or one capable of mathematical calculation.” 46 Am. Jur. 2d
`Judgments § 288; see also T.D. Melchiorre, Inc. v. Victory Foodservice Distributors Corp., 2021
`WL 426493, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2021) (“Normally, damages must be established at an
`evidentiary hearing. However, if the amount of damages ‘can by computation be made certain,’
`then a hearing is unnecessary.”) (quoting Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d
`Cir. 1990)); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Yakubets, 3 F. Supp. 3d 261, 271 n.8 (E.D. Pa. 2014)).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01342-MN Document 19 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 85
`
`LPS, 2016 WL 1238223, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2016)). The decision to enter a default
`
`judgment is within the discretion of the court. Tristrata Tech., Inc. v. Med. Skin Therapy
`
`Research, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 161, 164 (D. Del. 2010) (citing Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178.
`
`1180 (3d Cir. 1984)).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`The Clerk of Court entered the Entry of Default in Appearance against Defendant on
`
`January 11, 2021 (D.I. 13); thus, step one of Rule 55 is satisfied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). At
`
`step two, Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment seeks $1,139,827.80 in damages. (D.I. 15 at ¶
`
`8; D.I. 15-2) Plaintiff alleges the following: On February 25, 2019, Defendant sent Plaintiff an
`
`invoice for the service period from March 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. (D.I. 2 at ¶ 18)
`
`Plaintiff promptly paid Defendant $1,899,713.25, the total amount due as set forth in the invoice,
`
`which included a 10% “pre-payment” discount in the amount of $211,079.25. (Id.) Subsequent
`
`invoices credited Plaintiff’s advanced payment as a “pre-payment application.” (Id. at ¶ 19) On
`
`June 20, 2019, however, Defendant ceased providing the services due under the MSA, leaving a
`
`$1,139,827.80 credit balance owed to Plaintiff by Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 20) The parties agreed
`
`that this $1,139,827.80 credit balance was owed to Plaintiff and remains outstanding. (Id. at ¶¶
`
`20–26) Therefore, Plaintiff has shown that the “unchallenged facts set forth in the complaint . . .
`
`establish a legitimate cause of action.” Cohran v. Revenue Collect CRA Collections, C.A. No.
`
`12-082-SLR-SRF, 2013 WL 1632681, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 16, 2013) (quoting Mancuso v. Tyler
`
`Dane, LLC, 2012 WL 1536210, at *2 (D.N.J. May 1, 2012)).
`
`Accordingly, the next and final step is to determine the amount of damages to which
`
`Plaintiff is entitled. See T.D. Melchiorre, Inc. v. Victory Foodservice Distributors Corp., 2021
`
`WL 426493, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2021). Plaintiff’s request for $1,139,827.80 in damages is
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01342-MN Document 19 Filed 04/19/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 86
`
`supported by the affidavit of Plaintiff’s counsel (D.I. 15-1 at ¶¶ 10–13), and copies of the
`
`aforementioned invoices that were attached to the complaint. (See D.I. 2, Exs. D&E) Based on
`
`the facts alleged, Plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavit, and the invoices attached to Plaintiff’s
`
`complaint, the court finds that Plaintiff’s request for $1,139,827.80 in damages is an amount that
`
`can be made certain by computation and accurately represents the damages Plaintiff suffered as a
`
`result of Defendant’s failure to perform. See, e.g., T.D. Melchiorre, 2021 WL 426493, at *5
`
`(granting a motion for a default judgment and awarding damages without a hearing where the
`
`plaintiff had provided invoices and a payment history for calculating such damages).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) be GRANTED. (D.I. 15) Accordingly, I
`
`recommend that the court enter an Order of Default Judgment in the following form:
`
`Upon consideration of plaintiff GoDaddy Media Temple Inc.’s (“GoDaddy”)
`Motion for Default Judgment against defendant Anexio Data Centers, LLC
`(“Anexio”) (D.I. 15), and finding a sufficient basis therefore, IT IS HEREBY
`ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of GoDaddy and against Anexio, and
`Anexio is ordered to pay damages in the amount of $1,139,827.80 to GoDaddy. IT
`IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order and shall
`file a proof of service evidencing same once complete.
`
`This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 72(b)(1), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections
`
`within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objections and responses to the objections are limited to three (3)
`
`pages each. The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right
`
`to de novo review in the District Court. See Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 F. App’x 924, 925 n.1
`
`(3d Cir. 2006); Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878–79 (3d Cir. 1987).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01342-MN Document 19 Filed 04/19/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 87
`
`The parties are directed to the court’s Standing Order For Objections Filed Under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 72, dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the court’s website,
`
`http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.
`
`
`Dated: April 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________________
`Sherry R. Fallon
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`5
`
`