Radius Bank v. Larksimple, LLC et al, No. 4:2020cv00001 - Document 20 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgement 12 is GRANTED. The Court ENTERS a default judgment against LarkSimple, LLC and Warren Austin. Plaintiff Radius Bank is AWARDED $115,618.10 in damages and $29,000.00 in attorneys' fees to be recovered from LarkSimple and Austin. Copies distributed to all parties. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 10/5/2020. (clou)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Radius Bank v. Larksimple, LLC et al Doc. 20 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR^ OCT - 5 2020 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINljA Norfolk Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK. VA RADIUS BANK, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.4:20-cv-l V. LARKSIMPLE LLC, and, WARREN AUSTIN, Defendants. I i MEMORANDUM OPINIONAND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Radius Bank's ("Radius") Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant LarkSimple, LLC ("LarkSimple) and Warren Austin ("Austin"),(collectively "Defaulting Defendants"), pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 12. Radius filed six exhibits and an affidavit in support of its Motion. A default judgment hearing was held on September 29,2020. ECF No. 19. Representatives for LarkSimple and Austin were not present. At the hearing, the Court GRANTED the Motion for Default Judgment against LarkSimple and Austin. Radius also submitted filings relating to attorneys' fees and costs. ECF Nosj 12 and 18. This opinion explains the Court's findings and disposition ofthe motion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case involves LarkSimple and Austin's default on a loan payment. ECF No. 1112. On October 2016, Radius entered into a loan transaction (the "Loan") with LarkSimple and Austin whereby Radius loaned money to LarkSimple, and Austin guaranteed by payment ofthe loan. On October 14,2016, LarkSimple executed a U.S. Small Business Administration Note(the "Note"), 1 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
