United States of America v. Wright, No. 2:2015cv00136 - Document 8 (S.D. Miss. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 3/18/2016 (scp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States of America v. Wright Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-136-KS-MTP VIVIAN L. WRIGHT DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER For the reasons provided below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [6]. Plaintiff filed its Complaint [1] on October 13, 2015. It contends that Defendant is indebted to it in the amount of $71,515.14. Plaintiff provided a Certificate of Indebtedness [1-1] executed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), which provides that Defendant executed a promissory note to secure a Direct Consolidation loan from the U.S. Department of Education in the amount of $63,543.27 on March 22, 2004 at 3.00% per annum. Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 685.202(b), $7,971.87 in unpaid interest was capitalized and added to the principal balance. Defendant defaulted on the loan on December 23, 2009. Plaintiff has received $6,801.00 in payments, and another $7,375.18 in interest has accrued through September 4, 2015 – bringing the total debt $78,890.32 as of that date. By her default, Defendant admitted Plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). In addressing a motion for default judgment, the Court accepts the factual allegations of the Complaint as true. The entry of a default, however, “does not in itself warrant the Dockets.Justia.com court in entering a default judgment. There must be a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.” Id. “Default judgments are a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and resorted to by courts only in extreme situations.” Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989). Accepting the allegations of the Complaint as true, the Court finds that there is sufficient basis to enter a default judgment against Defendant. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff $78,890.32 in principal damages; prejudgment interest at the rate of 5.88% per annum from September 4, 2015, to the date of judgment; postjudgment interest at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961; and costs and fees as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The Court will enter a separate final judgment. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, on this, the 18th day of March, 2016. s/ Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
