United States District Court, D. Kansas
U.S. FOODS, INC., Plaintiff,
DERRICK S. REED; HORIZONS LLC; HORIZONS BURGERS LLC d/b/a HORIZONS HAMBURGERS PALACE; AND MC J'S, INC. d/b/a REED'S RINGSIDE SPORTS BAR, Defendants.
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
U.S. Foods, Inc. brings this suit to recover amounts and
reimbursements owed by Defendants Derrick S. Reed, Horizons
LLC, Horizons Burgers LLC (d/b/a/ Horizons Hamburgers
Palace), and MC J's, Inc. (d/b/a/ Reed's Ringside
Sports Bar) pursuant to a contract between the parties under
which Plaintiff supplied Defendants with various food and
food-related products. Now before the Court is
Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Default Judgment (Sum
Certain) (Doc. 16). Defendants have failed to appear in this
case and to respond to Plaintiff's motion. The Court has
thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff's motion and the
documentation submitted in support thereof, and is prepared
to rule. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's
motion is granted, but Plaintiff is not awarded the full
relief it seeks.
October 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default
Judgment (Sum Certain)against Defendants, who failed to
appear or oppose Plaintiff's motion. A Clerk's Entry
of Default against Defendants was filed on November 21,
order dated November 22, 2017,  the Court initially
agreed with Plaintiff that the contractual amount owed by
Defendants would be appropriate for a sum certain entry of
default under Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(1), but required Plaintiff
to provide supporting documentation for its attorneys'
fees and costs in the form of billing records, which
Plaintiff filed under seal on December 8, 2017. Upon further
consideration, however, the Court determined that
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment failed to
appropriately document the damages sought. The Court
requested, by email to Plaintiff's counsel, that
Plaintiff provide documentation to support its calculation of
the pro-rated incentive reimbursement amount owed by
Defendants, the amount of unpaid invoices, and the interest
calculation. The Court stated that after receiving the
appropriate supporting documentation, it would conduct a
telephonic hearing during which Plaintiff's counsel could
further clarify the amounts sought. The Court advised that it
expected Plaintiff's counsel to mitigate attorneys'
fees associated with compiling the additional supporting
documentation and the telephonic hearing.
January 8, 2018 email to chambers providing the requested
documentation, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that the
amounts set forth in Plaintiff's initial motion for
default judgment and in the supporting affidavits were
inaccurate. The Court therefore denied Plaintiff's motion
for default judgment without prejudice in an order dated
January 10, 2018, and cautioned Plaintiff that any amended
motion should be accompanied by the appropriate documentation
to support the amounts claimed as of the date of
Plaintiff's original motion for default
judgment.Thus, the Court expected any amended
motion to seek an amount no greater than what Plaintiff would
have been entitled to had its October 31, 2017 motion for
default judgment been accompanied by the appropriate
amended motion, Plaintiff seeks a default judgment in the
amount of $193, 254.09, which includes: (1) $55, 524.70 in
amounts past due on invoices; (2) $102, 836.57 for a
pro-rated incentive reimbursement under the parties'
contract; (3) $26, 129.62 in pre-judgment interest at a rate
of 1.5% per month from April 2017 through February 2018; and
(4) $8, 763.20 in attorneys' fees and costs through
October 30, 2017. Plaintiff also seeks post-judgment interest
at a rate of 1.5% per month.
has provided sufficient documentation to support that it is
owed a pro-rated incentive reimbursement of $102, 836.57.
However, although Plaintiff seeks past-due amounts owing of
$55, 524.70, Plaintiff has submitted invoices sufficient to
support only $37, 506.79. It appears that Plaintiff has
included in the total of invoices past due the amounts of two
large checks ($8, 000 and $9, 875) that Defendant wrote to
Plaintiff but that could not be cashed due to insufficient
funds. It is unclear which invoices these
checks were intended to cover and whether those invoices are
among those submitted in support of Plaintiff's amended
motion-which would result in the default judgment amount
including the same charges twice. Plaintiff's recovery
for past-due invoices will therefore be limited to $37,
Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment interest at a rate of 1.5% per
month, which is the prejudgment interest rate permitted by
the parties' contract. However, Plaintiff seeks
prejudgment interest from April 2017 through February 2018,
despite the Court having ordered that Plaintiff's
recovery would be limited to amounts claimed as of the date
of its original motion for default judgment. That motion was
filed on October 31, 2017 and, therefore, Plaintiff is
awarded pre-judgment interest at 1.5% per month from April
2017 through October 2017 in the amount of $14, 736.05.
has properly limited its request for attorneys' fees and
costs to the amount incurred up to October 30, 2017, when
counsel completed preparation of Plaintiff's original
motion for default judgment. Plaintiff is therefore awarded
$8, 763.20 in attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
terms of the parties' contract.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Sum Certain)
(Doc. 7) is granted and Plaintiff is awarded
judgment in the total amount of $163, 842.61, which consists
of a pro-rated incentive reimbursement of $102, 836.57,
past-due invoices in the amount of $37, 506.79, pre-judgment
interest of $14, 736.05, and attorney's fees and costs of
$8, 763.20. Plaintiff is also awarded post-judgment interest
at a rate of 1.5% per month.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Both Plaintiff and the Court have been
mailing pleadings and orders in this case to Defendants at
the address where they were served with process. See
Docs. 3-6. Additionally, the Court has attempted to send its
orders to an additional address on file for Defendants. All
of the Court's ...