Carrington v. Varela
| Decision Date | 05 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-00573-SRB |
| Parties | LEASA CARRINGTON a/k/a Leasa Carr, Plaintiff, v. JESUS O. VARELA and JOV SERVICES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Before the Court is Plaintiff Leasa Carrington's Motion for Default Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). (Doc. #31.) For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff's purchase of a residential property located at 13001 St. Andrews Drive in Kansas City, Missouri, 64145 (hereinafter the "Property"), located in Jackson County, Missouri. Since Defendants Jesus O. Varela ("Varela") and JOV Services have failed to defend or otherwise respond to this action and default has been entered, the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's amended complaint are taken as true. Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2010).
On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff purchased the Property via contract from Domenic Jones and Haley Jones, a married couple and the Property's previous owners (the "Sellers"). During December 2017, Plaintiff became aware of a number of undisclosed conditions and defects in the Property that have caused the Property to significantly decrease in value. Specifically, Plaintiff discovered that the Property suffers from, among other things: movement, shifting, or structural problems within the walls, foundation, and slab; a disconnected basement shower drain; a garage slab in serious disrepair; undisclosed piering; significant interior tile, drywall, and trim damage; substandard or improper interior framing; the unpermitted installation of an electrical box; and shifting door jambs.
Prior to Plaintiff's purchase of the Property, the Sellers hired Varela and/or his business, JOV Services, to perform various repairs, renovations, and remodeling services to the Property. No permits were ever obtained from either Jackson County, Missouri, or the City of Kansas City, Missouri, prior to making the earlier-described renovations. Before Plaintiff purchased the Property, the Sellers provided Plaintiff with a copy of a Seller's Disclosure and Condition of the Property Addendum (the "Disclosure"). The Disclosure stated, in part, that the Sellers were not aware of any material defects in the Property, including:
(Doc. #21, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges the defects have significantly decreased the Property's fair market value and need to be repaired.
On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a petition1 for damages in Missouri state court, asserting negligence and negligence per se claims against the Sellers in addition to claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The Sellers subsequently removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. On January 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Varela and JOV Services as defendants to her negligence claim (Count III) and negligence per se claim (Count V). (Doc. #21.) Shortly after filing her amended complaint, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice her claims against the Sellers (Doc. #23), leaving only her negligence claims against Defendants Varela and JOV Services.
Defendants were served with the summons and complaint on January 23, 2021. At no point did Defendants respond to Plaintiff's complaint or otherwise enter an appearance in this case. On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Clerk of the Court for an Entry of Default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), stating Defendants had failed to plead or otherwise defend against this action. (Doc. #28). The Clerk entered default on February 26, 2021 (Doc. #29), and Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b) on March 1, 2020.
Plaintiff seeks a $119,400.00 damage award, the estimated cost to repair the Property's alleged defects. On March 15, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing on the issue of liability and to submit additional evidentiary support of her damages. Plaintiff filed her supplemental briefing, as well as additional documentation in support of her claimed damages, on March 31, 2021. As of the date of this Order's issuance, neither Varela nor JOV Services have entered an appearance or filed any documents with the Court.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default." "[E]ntry of default under Rule 55(a) must precede a grant of default judgment under Rule 55(b)." Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998). Once default is entered, the defaulting defendant "has no further standing to contest the factual allegations of plaintiff's claim for relief and he "is deemed to have admitted all well pleaded allegations in the complaint." Taylor v. City of Ballwin, 859 F.2d 1330, 1333 n.7 (8th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted); see also Murray, 595 F.3d at 871 (). A court must then review the complaint and "consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit mere conclusions of law." Marshall v. Baggett, 616 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Murray, 595 F.3d at 871).
"If the taken-as-true allegations of the complaint constitute a legitimate cause of action, then the amount of the default judgment must be ascertained." Adventure Creative Grp., Inc. v. CVSL, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1069 (D. Minn. 2019) (citation omitted); see also Hagen v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Cmty. Coll., 205 F.3d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 2000) (). If the judgment sought by the plaintiff is not for a sum certain, Rule 55(b)(2) provides that "the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper" in order to "enable the court to enter judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); accord Everyday Learning Corp. v. Larson, 242 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2001) (). Alternatively, a court may also determine the amount of damages based upon affidavits and documentary evidence supplied by the plaintiff. See Taylor, 859 F.2d at 1333 (citations omitted) ( an evidentiary hearing unnecessary when damages "are capable of being computed on the basis of facts of record"). Whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine the amount of plaintiff's damages is a decision soundly committed to the discretion of the district court. See id.
Before considering a party's request for the entry of default judgment, the entering court must confirm that it possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court confirms this necessary prerequisite is satisfied, as there is complete diversity among the parties2 and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, this Court has authority to consider whether Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment in this matter.3
In her amended complaint, Plaintiff names both Varela and JOV Services and asserts two claims against them: (1) Count III: Negligence, and (2) Count V: Negligence Per Se. Because a defaulting party does not admit to any conclusions of law raised in a plaintiff's complaint, it remains this Court's task to determine if Plaintiff's taken-as-true factual allegations constitute a legitimate cause of action and, if so, to ascertain the amount of damages. See Glick v. W. Power Sports, Inc., 944 F.3d 714, 718 (8th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up) ("[W]hile it is . . . appropriate for a district court to enter a default judgment when a party fails to appropriately respond in a timely manner, it is nonetheless incumbent upon the district court to ensure that the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action prior to entering final judgment."). A federal district court sitting in diversity jurisdiction applies the substantive law of the forum state which, in this case, is Missouri. Aragon v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 735 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2013). The Court thus looks to Missouri law in evaluating whether Plaintiff alleges a legitimate cause of action.
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment against Varela as well as his business, JOV Services. Plaintiff alleges Defendant JOV Services "is a sole proprietorship owned and operated by Defendant Jesus Varela." (Doc. #21, ¶ 4.) Before determining whether Plaintiff's unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, the Court must first consider whether JOV...
To continue reading
Request your trial