OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment against International Nautic LLC [ECF No. 240], filed on January 11, 2019. For the reasons stated below, this Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 3] against (1) International Nautic LLC and (2) Porter, Inc. d/b/a Thunderbird Products. In essence, the Plaintiff alleged that it suffered "substantial damages" because a boat it purchased from the Defendants was not CE compliant. Pl.'s Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 142-49. Based upon this, the Plaintiff raised the following claims: fraudulent misrepresentation (Count 1); negligent misrepresentation (Count 2); aiding and abetting (Count 3); civil conspiracy (Count 4); negligence (Count 5); breach of express contract (Count 6); breach of implied-in-fact contract (Count 7); breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count 8); breach of express warranties (Count 9); breach of implied warranties (Count 10); violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count 11); and unjust enrichment (Count 12). Id. ¶¶ 175-269.1 Regarding damages, the Plaintiff requested (1)$908,816.85 in compensatory damages, or in the alternative, rescission; (2) $2,726,450.55 in punitive damages; and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. Id. p. 34.
On April 22, 2015, Magistrate Judge Susan Collins issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 130] in which she recommended that default judgment be entered against International Nautic LLC due to its failure to appear at several court hearings.2 Report & Recommendation, pp. 3-4, ECF No. 130. Judge Collins further recommended that International Nautic LLC's Answers [ECF Nos. 15, 78] and Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 80] be stricken. Id. Ultimately, the Honorable James T. Moody accepted these recommendations and struck International Nautic LLC's Answers and Motion to Dismiss. Order, pp. 1-2, ECF No. 170. However, in order to avoid the possibility of inconsistent results, Judge Moody withheld "entry of a final judgment on the default until the conclusion of this litigation." Id. at 2.
On August 31, 2015, Porter filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 149]. On March 30, 2017, this Motion was granted in part and denied in part by Judge Moody. Op. & Order, p. 25, ECF No. 179. Namely, the Motion was granted as to Counts 1 through 5 of the Amended Complaint but denied as to Counts 6 through 12. Id. Shortly thereafter, the Clerk of Court reassigned this case to the undersigned as presiding judge. Order, ECF No. 180.
In March 2018, the Plaintiff's case against Porter proceeded to a bench trial. See ECF No. 231. Following the trial, the Court entered judgment in favor of Porter. Op. & Order, p. 34, ECF No. 228. The Court also entered default judgment against International Nautic LLC. Id. However, regarding damages to be assessed against International Nautic LLC, the Court found that it would only cost a few thousand dollars to make the boat CE compliant based upon the evidence presented at trial. Id. at 33. Namely, the Court found as follows:
"The fact that a default is entered does not automatically result in plaintiff recovering what was demended [sic] in the complaint." 10A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2688.1 (4th Ed. 2018). "When a defendant is in default, the well pleaded factual allegations in the [c]omplaint, except those relating to damages, are taken as true." Ford Motor Co. v. Cross, 441 F. Supp. 2d 837, 848 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (citations omitted). Additionally, Rule 55(b)(2) empowers the Court to hold hearings when it needs to "(A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter." In this case, the Court has received and examined evidence over the course of the bench trial related to the damages, and will use those findings to inform the default judgment against International Nautic.
Throughout the litigation and bench trial, SelectSun consistently highlighted the greatest flaw with the Boat: As delivered, it was not CE-certified. Porter does not dispute this, and all the evidence presented supports this conclusion as well. However, the Boat is usable. Schwaiger testified that he drove the Boat for an entire boating season. The primary problem he had with the Boat during the boating season involved an issue with the drive shaft, which the manufacturer (Ilmor) repaired. SelectSun did not provide sufficient evidence to tie the drive shaft issues to Porter or International Nautic, and instead focused its arguments around CE-certification.
But the evidence presented at the bench trial, specifically the testimony of Wayne Porter and Augusto Villalon, demonstrates that the Boat can be CE-certified with a different exhaust system. The IMCI approved the Formula 420 FX 8 and its variants with an integral exhaust system for CE-certification in December 2013. Therefore, it appears that the Boat could have been CE-certified before this litigation began in January 2014, with a change to an integral exhaust system. While neither Wayne Porter nor Augusto Villalon testified to a precise amount that such a change would cost, both estimated that the cost of installing an exhaust system that complies with EU standards to be around a few thousand dollars. Potentially as few as $2,000. With the change in exhaust system, the Boat would be in compliance with EU standards, and could be both used and sold in Europe.
Therefore, the Court will direct the Clerk to enter default against International Nautic. It will withhold the entry of a final default judgment until SelectSun provides evidence estimating the cost to replace the exhaust system to bring the Boat into compliance with EU standards. The Court will direct SelectSun to provide evidence of the same by October 31, 2018. If SelectSun does not provide evidence of its damages or file for an extension prior to the deadline, the Court will presume that SelectSun is waiving its pursuit of damages and will proceed accordingly.
Id. at 33-34. Accordingly, the Court withheld entry of a final default judgment against International Nautic LLC until the Plaintiff demonstrated the cost to repair the boat so as to makeit CE compliant, setting a deadline of October 31, 2018, for Plaintiff to file evidence of its damages in accordance with the Court's Opinion and Order. Id. at 34.
On October 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an affidavit from Hubertus Kettner in support of its claims for damages. See Kettner Aff., ECF No. 239. Kettner, an expert who testified at the trial, stated that the boat could not be made CE compliant and was a total loss. Id. ¶¶ 1, 3, 7. On January 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF No. 240]. Notwithstanding this Court's prior instructions, the Plaintiff continued to argue that "the cost of repair is inadequate to make Plaintiff whole." Mot. for Entry of Final J., p. 6, ECF No. 240. The Plaintiff argued at length that the boat could not be repaired and that the purchase price of the boat—which was $840,000.00—was the appropriate valuation of damages. Id. at 6-7. The Plaintiff also argued that his damages included the purchase of a custom boat lift and financing charges. Id. at 5.
On March 28, 2019, the Court found "that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that damages in the amount of $68,816.65 for the boat lift and financing charges in the amount of $124,000.00 are appropriate. The Plaintiff, however, has failed to demonstrate that damages for the full cost of the boat and attorney's fees are appropriate." Op. & Order, p. 6, ECF No. 241. Thus, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file additional materials to support its claims for damages and court costs. Id. at 7. In pertinent part, the Court found as follows:
First, there is a dispute between the Court's findings that the boat could become CE-certified and the affidavit presented. In its Opinion and Order denying the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Porter, the Court found that Defendant's expert Augusto Villalon, presented persuasive evidence that the "[b]oat can be CE-certified with a different exhaust system" and it appears that the boat "could have been CE-certified before this litigation began in January 2014, with a change to the integral exhaust system." (Op. and Order at 33-34.) The affiant disputes this and the Plaintiff contends that the Court "should not rely on Mr. Villalon's unreliable (uninformed and without foundation or basis) testimony in determining the Final Judgment against International Nautic." (Pl.'s Mot. for Entry of Final J. at 7 n.2.)
Kettner's affidavit notes that there was an attempt to fix the boat but it does not describe these efforts in detail or provide supporting documentary evidence. "Courts must ascertain with reasonable certainty the proper amount of damages based upon either an evidentiary hearing or definite figures contained in documentary evidence or a detailed affidavit." Huegel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 5929257, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 11, 2016) (emphasis added). Where an affidavit fails to provide sufficient detail and is not accompanied by additional documentation, such as here, an evidentiary hearing is appropriate. Id., at *2. As is, the Kettner affidavit alone "cannot provide the requisite reasonable certainty for a damages award without the necessity of a hearing." e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594 603 (7th Cir. 2007).
Finally, the Plaintiff requests attorneys' fees and costs, but fails to provide a breakdown of those costs. The Plaintiff must provide a sufficiently itemized statement of the time spent on each task for which the Plaintiff seeks legal fees, along with the rate charged for
...
