Concentric Methods, LLC v. Cillian Technologies, LLC, No. 8:2011cv01130 - Document 14 (D. Md. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Defendant 12/12/11 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/12/11. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : CONCENTRIC METHODS, LLC : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 11-1130 : CILLIAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for review in this breach of contract case is Plaintiff s motion for default judgment. No. 12). (ECF The relevant issues have been briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, Plaintiff s motion will be granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to renewal. I. Background The following facts are alleged in the amended complaint. Plaintiff Concentric Methods, LLC ( Concentric ) is a government contractor that provides information technology, engineering, and other support services to the federal government. Defendant Cillian Technologies, LLC, which also goes by the name Killian, LLC ( Killian ), is also a government contractor. Concentric is located in Virginia, and Killian is located in Maryland. On October 22, 2010, the parties entered into a contract. Killian agreed to provide certain equipment and services to Concentric to satisfy a previously incurred debt of $241,737.71. (ECF No. 4 ¶ 2). Apparently Killian only partially performed its obligations and thus still owes $179,677.33 to Concentric. Killian has acknowledged this outstanding debt, but it has refused to pay it. On April 29, 2011, Concentric filed a complaint against Killian in this court. (ECF No. 1). complaint as of right on May 3, 2011. Concentric amended the (ECF No. 4). On June 8, 2011, Concentric served the summons and amended complaint. Killian failed Concentric to moved for (ECF Nos. 8, 12). July 8, 2011. against respond within entry of requisite default and time default period, judgment. The clerk entered default against Killian on (ECF No. 9). Killian the When for Concentric seeks a default judgment breach of contract in the amount of entered and the $179,677.33, plus interest. II. Motion for Default Judgment Where a default has been previously complaint does not specify a certain amount of damages, the court may application enter and a default notice to judgment, the upon defaulting the party, plaintiff s pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). A defendant s default, however, does not automatically the entitle plaintiff to entry of a default judgment; rather, that decision is left to the discretion of the court. See Dow v. Jones, 232 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (D.Md. 2002). 2 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has a strong policy that cases be decided on their merits, id. (citing United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 453 (4th Cir. 1993)), but default judgment may be appropriate where a party is essentially unresponsive, SEC v. Lawbaugh, 359 F.Supp.2d 418, 421 (D.Md. 2005) (citing Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). Here, more than six months have passed since Killian was served with the amended complaint, and Killian pleaded nor asserted a defense in response. has neither As a result, the adversary process has been halted because of [this] essentially unresponsive party. will thus be Id. warranted if Default judgment against Defendant the pleads a breach of contract claim. amended complaint adequately See Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001) (explaining that, although the defendant is deemed to admit every well-pleaded allegation of the complaint upon entry of default, the court must nonetheless determine whether those allegations have been adequately pleaded and thus warrant relief). The facts set forth in the amended complaint, for which Concentric provides supporting documentation in its motion for default judgment, are sufficient to state a breach of contract claim. In Maryland, to state a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant owed the plaintiff a 3 contractual obligation and breached that obligation. Md. 638, 658 (2010). that the defendant materially RRC Ne., LLC v. BAA Md., Inc., 413 According to the amended complaint, Killian agreed to furnish and deliver to [Concentric] or its customer all the supplies and perform all the services set forth in assigned orders in order to satisfy outstanding debts that it owed. (ECF No. 4 ¶ 7). Furthermore, the amended complaint states that Killian failed to perform the services [and] failed to furnish . . . supplies to [Concentric] or its customers. (Id. ¶ 8). has stated Based on these undisputed allegations, Concentric a breach of contract claim for which relief is warranted. The analysis now turns to the issue of damages. seeks compensatory damages in the amount of prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest. Concentric $179,677.33, In support of this request, it submits the affidavit of David Moran ( the Moran Affidavit ), the chief financial officer of Corp., which is the parent company to Concentric. 1). Cape (ECF No. 12- According to the Moran Affidavit, Killian has acknowledged that it owes money to Concentric. (Id. at 1). The Moran Affidavit states that the amount owed is $179,677.33. 1-2). Fox (Id. at Furthermore, attached to the Moran Affidavit are two exhibits, one of which is an email between Jim Vedder, who is the chief financial officer of Killian, and Moran. 4 (Id. at 6- 8). That email includes a spreadsheet attachment that itemizes the invoices Concentric. is also of apparently (Id. at 8). $179,677.33. consistent within outstanding payments owed to Per that spreadsheet, the amount owed Because itself and the with documentary the amount evidence sought in is the amended complaint,1 the record supports Concentric s request for $179,677.33 in compensatory damages. As to prejudgment insufficient. The interest, amended however, complaint the requests record prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date of breach. 4, at 4).2 is (ECF No. The motion for default judgment likewise asks for the legal rate of interest, but it asks specifically that interest be assessed from October 22, 2010. (ECF No. 12, at 3). The record, i.e., the Moran Affidavit, however, is devoid of any facts from which it can be determined when the breach (or 1 Concentric may not be awarded more than what it requested in the amended complaint. Pursuant to Rule 54(c): A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings. Thus, where a complaint specifies the amount of damages sought, the plaintiff is limited to entry of a default judgment in that amount. [C]ourts have generally held that a default judgment cannot award additional damages . . . because the defendant could not reasonably have expected that his damages would exceed that amount. Meindl v. Genesys Pac. Techs., Inc. (In re Genesys Data Techs., Inc.), 204 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2000). 2 In Maryland, the legal rate of interest is six percent per annum. Mitchell v. Kentmorr Harbour Marina, No. WMN 10 0337, 2011 WL 5826674, at *5 (D.Md. Nov. 17, 2011) (citing Md. Const. art. III, § 57). 5 breaches) occurred of on contract October prejudgment request 22, interest Concentric s occurred, 2010.3 cannot for let be alone that the Without more fairly awarded. prejudgment interest breach information, will Thus, be denied without prejudice to its right to renew. Lastly, an award of post-judgment interest need not be specifically granted because a plaintiff is entitled to recover such interest by operation of law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) ( Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court. ). II. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff s motion for default judgment will be granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to renewal. A separate order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 3 It is highly unlikely that the breach of contract occurred on October 22, 2010. According to the amended complaint, that date is when the parties entered into the contract. (ECF No. 4 ¶¶ 2, 7). 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
