SPECIAL SHAPES REFRACTORY CO., INC. v. TIGER TRANS GROUP, INC., 2:15-cv-547-WMA. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20150630b82
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr. , District Judge . Because defendant Tiger Trans Group, Inc. did not file a timely answer or other response to the complaint brought by plaintiff Special Shapes Refractory Co., Inc. in the above-styled case, and was thus in default, the Clerk, on plaintiff's motion, entered default against said defendant on June 8, 2015. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment supported by proof of the amou
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr. , District Judge . Because defendant Tiger Trans Group, Inc. did not file a timely answer or other response to the complaint brought by plaintiff Special Shapes Refractory Co., Inc. in the above-styled case, and was thus in default, the Clerk, on plaintiff's motion, entered default against said defendant on June 8, 2015. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment supported by proof of the amoun..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr., District Judge.
Because defendant Tiger Trans Group, Inc. did not file a timely answer or other response to the complaint brought by plaintiff Special Shapes Refractory Co., Inc. in the above-styled case, and was thus in default, the Clerk, on plaintiff's motion, entered default against said defendant on June 8, 2015. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment supported by proof of the amount of plaintiff's damages caused by the confessed conduct of defendant. The court finds plaintiff's proof to be more than sufficient to justify the monetary relief sought, which is arrived at by arithmetic computation upon undisputed documentary evidence. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to judgment against said defendant in the amount of $69,419.89 plus interest of $1,902.58. A separate final judgment will be entered.
Source: Leagle
