Meade Cmtys. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 21 July 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action ELH-21-1976
• Parties: MEADE COMMUNITIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CASANDRA JONES Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

MEADE COMMUNITIES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
CASANDRA JONES Defendant.

Civil Action No. ELH-21-1976

United States District Court, D. Maryland

July 21, 2022

MEMORANDUM

Ellen Lipton Hollander, United States District Judge

This suit began on August 5, 2021, when plaintiff Meade Communities, LLC (“Meade”) filed a single-count complaint for breach of contract against defendant Casandra Jones. ECF 1 (the “Complaint”). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Jones breached her contractual obligation to tender rent payments, as specified in a lease agreement, for her apartment located at Fort Meade (“Ft. Meade”). Id. ¶¶ 2, 5-17. Meade seeks, among other things, “[a] judgment for the amount determined to be due” and “[a]ttorney's fees and costs as provided for under the Subject Lease[.]” Id. at 4.^[1] The Complaint is accompanied by three exhibits. See ECF 1-2; ECF 1-3; ECF 1-4.

As discussed, infra, the Court's subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF 1, ¶ 3. This is because “the lease agreement at issue in this case involves a housing unit located on Ft. Meade, Maryland, a military installation under exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction.” Id.; see Stokes v. Adair, 265 F.2d 662, 666 (4th Cir. 1959).

Plaintiff was served with a summons and a copy of the Complaint on August 26, 2021.

1

ECF 4. But, to date, plaintiff has not responded to the Complaint. See Docket.

The Clerk of the Court entered an “Order Of Default” on March 8, 2022. ECF 13. And, the Clerk of the Court then issued a “Notice Of Default” to Jones. ECF 14. Now pending is plaintiff's motion for default judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2), seeking damages and costs totaling $14,416.00. ECF 15 (the “Motion”). The Motion is supported by three exhibits. ECF 15-1; ECF 15-2; ECF 15-3. The Motion also includes a Certificate of Service indicating that the Motion was mailed to Jones at an address she provided in an earlier submission. See ECF 15 at 3 (Certificate of Service); ECF 8 at 3 (Jones's specification of her address). However, Jones has not responded to the Motion, and the time to do so has expired. See Local Rule 105.2(a).

No hearing is required. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion.

I. Background

A.

Meade alleges that it “owns and operates family housing located on Fort Meade, Maryland under the Department of Defense Military Housing Privatization Initiative (10 U.S.C. § 2871, et seq.)” (“MHPI”). ECF 1, ¶ 1.^[2] Jones is a civilian who, at the time the Complaint was filed, “occupie[d] family housing owned and operated by Meade.” Id. ¶ 2; see ECF 15-2, ¶ 4 (attesting to Jones's civilian status).

2

Meade and Jones “executed a residential lease for the property on December 23, 2019.” ECF 1, ¶2; see ECF 1-2 (the “Lease”).^[3] In particular, Jones leased the property at 3600 Mower Court #A, at Ft. Meade (the “Property”). ECF 1-2, ¶ 1(a). The term of the Lease ran for a period of one year, from December 23, 2019 to December 22, 2020. Id. ¶ 1(c). The Lease provided that on the first day of each month of the Term, Jones was required to pay rent to Meade, in the amount of $1,880.00. Id. ¶ 1(d). Under the Lease, “If the Owner fails to receive Resident's Monthly Rent payment on or before the close of business on the fifth day of the month in which it is due, a Late Charge . . . will be paid by Resident and collectible by Owner as Additional Rent for each month the Monthly Rent payment is overdue ....” Id. ¶ 4. In accordance with this provision, the Lease specified that Meade could impose a “Late Charge” in the amount of “Five percent (5%) of the Monthly Rent.” Id. ¶ 1(e) (emphasis omitted). Moreover, if Jones failed to pay rent as required by the Lease, “the entire amount of Monthly Rent for the remainder of the Term may, at Owner's option, thereupon become immediately due and payable.” Id. ¶ 4.

The Lease also specified that in the event Jones contravenes any provision contained therein, Meade is entitled to “institute any appropriate court action for any or all of the following: (i) repossession of the Home; (ii) all Monthly Rent then due; and (iii) all other damages sustained by Owner.” Id. ¶ 27. And, the Lease included a provision stating that Jones “agrees to pay any and all administrative, professional and attorneys [sic] fees and expenses, filing fees for litigation, and any other cost and expense (including but not limited to filing fees and sheriff or constable fees) incurred by Owner in enforcing the provisions of this [Lease] against Resident for any breach of this [Lease] by Resident ....” Id. ¶ 24.

3

According to Meade, Jones “failed to pay rent in a timely manner pursuant to her lease agreement over an extended period of time.” ECF 1, ¶ 2. Specifically, as of August 3, 2021, Jones owed Meade “in excess of $9,916.00 in rent and late fees.” Id. ¶ 10; see ECF 1-3 (“Resident Ledger,” dated August 3, 2021). Further, “Jones was sent Notices of Unpaid Rent and Balance Due Statements.” ECF 1, ¶ 11.^[4] But, as of the time of filing the Complaint, Jones had failed to pay the outstanding balance owed to Meade. Id. ¶ 12.

On March 10, 2020, “Meade provided Jones with written notice” specifying “that if the balance was not satisfied by April 13, 2020, Meade [would] file for breach of contract to recover Jones' outstanding balance and his [sic] eviction pursuant to the Subject Lease.” Id. ¶ 13; see ECF 1-4 at 2. However, due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the federal moratorium on evictions that followed, Meade did not move to evict plaintiff at that time. See ECF 1, ¶ 14 (specifying that Meade “honored the moratorium on evictions”); see generally Ala. Assoc. of Realtors v. Dep't of Health and Human Services, __ U.S. __, 141 S.Ct. 2485, 2486-2489 (2021) (describing the history of the federal eviction moratorium).

The term of the Lease expired on December 22, 2020. ECF 1-2, ¶ 1(c). However, Jones did not vacate the Property at that time. ECF 1, ¶ 15-16. Accordingly, on April 28, 2021, Meade mailed Jones another letter stating, ECF 1-4 at 3: “Please accept this letter as our notice that your Lease will not be extended or renewed. The decision was based on delinquent rent in the amount of $4,114.00 and the refusal [to] discuss making satisfactory payment arrangements for the account.” Meade instructed plaintiff to “return all keys to [its] office no later than May 28, 2021 during regular business hours.” Id. Nevertheless, Jones continued to reside at the Property in the

4

ensuing months. ECF 1, ¶ 16.

B.

This suit followed on August 5, 2021. ECF 1. Thereafter, summons was returned executed on August 31, 2021, reflecting that service was personally effected on plaintiff on August 26, 2021. See ECF 4. Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant was required to respond to the suit by September 16, 2021, twenty-one days following her receipt of a copy of the summons and the Complaint. But, Jones did not respond to the Complaint by that date. See Docket.

Accordingly, on October 11, 2021, Meade filed a “Motion For Entry Of Default” (ECF 5), which was accompanied by two exhibits. ECF 5-1; ECF 5-2. On October 20, 2021, the Clerk entered an “Order Of Default,” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). ECF 6. The Clerk also issued a “Notice Of Default” to Jones on October 20, 2021. ECF 7 (the “First Notice”). It stated that Jones had 30 days in which to file a motion to vacate the Order Of Default. Id.

Jones received the First Notice because on November 19, 2021, she filed a “Notice To Vacate Order Of Default.” ECF 8 (the “Motion to Vacate”). She stated, among other things, that she “caught” COVID-19 in April 2021, during her “high-risk pregnancy”; her rental unit had been “flooded with sewage water for the 5th time,” without compensation to her; she had been in the “ICU”; her sister died; and Meade's maintenance workers damaged her Property. Id. at 2-3. Moreover, around the time that she was served with the suit, she “delivered [her] child prematurely and remained hospitalized with [her] son until he was released.” Id. at 3. Further, she advised that she was seeking to obtain rental assistance to help her meet her outstanding obligations to Meade. Id. at 3-5.

By Memorandum (ECF 9) and Order (ECF 10) of February 3, 2022, I granted the Motion

5

to Vacate, explaining that Jones had promptly responded to the Order of Default and provided the Court with adequate grounds to excuse her failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules. ECF 9 at 4. Accordingly, I afforded defendant another opportunity to respond to the Complaint, due by February 25, 2022. Id. at 5. However, Jones failed to do so by that date, or at any time thereafter. See Docket.

On March 8, 2022, Meade filed a renewed “Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default” (ECF 12), supported by one exhibit. ECF 12-1. On the same date, the Clerk entered an “Order Of Default,” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a) (ECF 13, the “Renewed Order Of Default”), and mailed a notice to Jones of the same. ECF 14 (the “Second Notice”). The Second Notice advised Jones that she had 30 days to respond to the Renewed Order of Default. Id. Nonetheless, plaintiff failed to respond.

Thereafter, on April 5, 2022, plaintiff filed the Motion, asking the Court to award a default judgment against plaintiff. ECF 15. In relevant part, plaintiff states that Jones is “a civilian who previously resided at family housing owned and operated by Meade . . . .” Id. ¶ 1. Thus, it appears that Jones no longer resides at the Property.

The Motion seeks money damages in the amount of $13,864.00. Id. ¶ 15. In support of its claim, Meade has provided the Court with an updated version of the “Resident Ledger,” dated October 18, 2021. ECF 15-3 (the “Ledger”) at 1. Consistent with the Motion, the Ledger reflects that Jones owes Meade a total sum of $13,864.00. Id. at 2. This sum...