Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. v. Infuze, LLC

• Decision Date: 05 August 2022
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00064-TC
• Parties: OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., Plaintiff, v. INFUZE, LLC., a Utah limited liability company, DANIEL K. NOALL, an individual, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
INFUZE, LLC., a Utah limited liability company, DANIEL K. NOALL, an individual, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00064-TC

United States District Court, D. Utah

August 5, 2022

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

TENA CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the court is Plaintiff Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.'s motion for entry of default judgment against Defendants Infuze, LLC and Daniel K. Noall. (ECF No. 20.) The Clerk of Court previously issued default certificates against both Defendants. (ECF Nos. 9 & 10.) Neither Defendant has responded to the motion. Having reviewed the motion and having assessed both the merits of Old Dominion's complaint and the court's jurisdiction, the court GRANTS IN PART Old Dominion's motion and enters default judgment against Infuze.

FACTS^[1]

Old Dominion is a motor carrier and freight broker. Infuze is a Utah business that imports items from overseas, and Mr. Noall is one of Infuze's members. In December 2021 and January 2022, Old Dominion and Infuze entered into two contracts of carriage for air freight and overland motor carrier services. Each contract, comprised of a bill of lading and accompanying tariff terms and conditions, showed the various charges, fees, and duties on an invoice. If Infuze failed to pay

1

within forty-two days, a 35% liquidated-damages assessment would apply. The total bill for December was $22,858.45, and the total for January was $29,818.94. Old Dominion completed the orders, but Infuze never paid, leading to this lawsuit.

ANALYSIS

In deciding Old Dominion's motion, the court must first confirm that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims and personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Dennis Garberg & Assocs. v. Pack-Tech Int'l Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 772 (10th Cir. 1997). This is because “a judgment is void if the court that enters it lacks jurisdiction over either the subject matter of the action or the parties to the action.” Williams v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 1986).

I. Jurisdiction

To begin, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction here. Old Dominion invokes 49 U.S.C. § 14705(a), which gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over civil suits brought by common carriers “to recover charges for transportation or service provided by the carrier.” This is such a suit. Next, the court also has personal jurisdiction over both Defendants. The court can exercise general personal jurisdiction over any person domiciled in Utah and any corporation either incorporated in Utah or whose principal place of business is in Utah. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011). As stated above, Infuze is a Utah LLC with its principal place of business in Utah,^[2] and Mr. Noall is a Utah citizen. The court thus has general personal jurisdiction over both Defendants.

Old Dominion also submitted proof of service for both Defendants. Specifically, the process server certified that on May 20, 2022, she served a copy of the summons and complaint on

2

Ben Johnson, a co-owner of Infuze.^[3] (ECF No. 5.) The same process server certified that on June 16, 2022, she served a copy of the summons and complaint on Mr. Noall at his business address. (ECF No. 6.) Both events fall within the ninety-day window prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

II. Entry of Default

Old Dominion also properly obtained certificates of default from the Clerk of Court. After Infuze and Mr. Noall were served with process, their responsive pleadings were due on June 10, 2022, and July 7, 2022, respectively. (See ECF Nos. 5 & 6.) Neither Defendant filed an answer or motion to dismiss by those deadlines. On July 22, 2022, Old Dominion moved for entry of default against both Defendants, (ECF No. 7), and shortly after, the Clerk of Court entered their default. (ECF Nos. 9 & 10.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) states that “[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...