Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00005/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00005-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Natures Way Marine, LLC
Plaintiff
North America Materials, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

1 See also Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism and the Klan, 777 F.2d

1538, 1544 (11th Cir. 1985) (explaining that damages may be awarded on default judgment only

if the record adequately reflects the basis for award); Capitol Records v. Carmichael, 508 F.

Supp.2d 1079, 1084 n.4 (S.D. Ala. 2007) (observing that “plaintiffs’ allegations relating to the

amount of damages are not admitted by virtue of default; rather, the court must determine both

the amount and character of damages”). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATURES WAY MARINE, LLC, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-0005-WS-B

 )

NORTH AMERICA MATERIALS, INC., )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 15)

against defendant, North America Materials, Inc., as well as on plaintiff’s Supplemental

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 19).

On March 7, 2008, plaintiff, Natures Way Marine, LLC, filed its Motion for Default

Judgment and supporting evidentiary materials, requesting that the Court enter a default

judgment against North America Materials in the amount of $428,110.84, plus interest, attorneys

fees and costs. On March 24, 2008, the undersigned entered an Order (doc. 18) finding that

entry of default judgment against North America Materials was warranted under the

circumstances, but deeming plaintiff’s evidentiary submission inadequate to enable the Court to

fix damages. Even in the default judgment context, “[a] court has an obligation to assure that

there is a legitimate basis for any damage award it enters,” and not to award damages that are

uncertain or speculative. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2003).1

Because plaintiff’s evidentiary submission was incomplete and inconclusive in critical respects,

such that the proper amount of damages could not be fixed with reasonable certainty, the March

Case 1:08-cv-00005-WS-B Document 20 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 5
2 These invoices do not match up in certain respects with the backup

documentation furnished by Natures Way in its initial default judgment submission. Based on

plaintiff’s intentions as set forth in the Supplemental Memorandum, the Court will credit the

more recent backup as a comprehensive recitation of the invoices issued and the damages

claimed herein, and will disregard inconsistencies with previously submitted documentation.

-2-

24 Order directed plaintiff to supplement its submission, which it has now done.

Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum (doc. 19) purports to itemize and

enumerate all invoices billed from Natures Way to North America Materials which are claimed

as damages in this case.2

 Those invoices total $460,735.99 in amounts payable, as well as

credits of $25,200, for a total net damages figure of $435,535.99. To reconcile this amount with

the $428,110.84 figure sought in plaintiff’s previous default judgment submission, as well as the

Affidavit of Jay Simon, which was proffered in both sets of default judgment submissions (doc.

17, Exh. A, and doc. 19, Exh. C), plaintiff states that it is not asserting a claim for the difference

of $7,425.15.

Scrutiny of the invoices reveals a significant problem: Two of them appear entirely

unrelated to this lawsuit. The first 11 invoices (totaling $347,325.54) date from April 27, 2007

through June 27, 2007; are billed to North America Materials, Inc. in Rockport, Indiana; and

appear to relate to the pushboat and barge services identified in the Master Contract for

Movement of Rock (doc. 1, Exh. A) that lies at the core of this action. Inexplicably, however,

the next two invoices (totaling $113,410.45) are, by all appearances, totally divorced from this

dispute. Both of these invoices are billed to a company called Rein International Group, LLC in

Deluth, Georgia, and relate to the sale and loading of more than a half-million pounds of 3"

anchor chain in late October 2007 (some 4 to 6 months after the other transactions identified in

the invoices). Nothing in plaintiff’s evidentiary submission would support a finding that these

invoices have anything to do with North America Materials or the subject Master Contract for

Movement of Rock. Indeed, nothing in the Complaint, the Master Contract, or plaintiff’s

evidentiary filings suggests that Natures Way sold anchor chain to North America Materials, that

North America Materials failed to pay for any such anchor chain, that Rein International Group

is linked in any respect to North America Materials, or that the transactions between plaintiff and

Case 1:08-cv-00005-WS-B Document 20 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 5
3 To make matters worse, there is obvious double-counting occurring between the

two Rein International invoices. The first of those invoices, Invoice #1087, is dated 11/8/2007,

and is in the amount of $60,431.00. The second invoice is labeled “Statement,” is dated

12/11/2007, and specifically lists among the amounts owed Invoice #1087, as well as two other

invoices (not provided in plaintiff’s evidentiary materials), and various payments made by Rein

(again, not provided in the evidentiary materials). Although this “Statement” clearly

encompasses Invoice #1087, plaintiff simply lumps them together, thereby counting Invoice

#1087 twice in computing the total amount for which default judgment is sought. It is

abundantly clear that Invoice #1087 should not have been counted once in the damage

calculations, much less twice. 

-3-

Rein are at all compensable in these proceedings.3

Frankly, plaintiff’s error is difficult to comprehend. The March 24 Order unequivocally

placed plaintiff on notice of the need to get its damages documentation in order. Yet plaintiff did

not comply. What’s more, plaintiff’s counsel submitted an Affidavit (doc. 19, Exh. B) averring

that he has reviewed the invoices and that they are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. 

Even looking past the problematic notion that plaintiff’s counsel would possess first-hand

knowledge of the accuracy of amounts billed by his client last year, his sworn representation is

dubious, at best. Any reasonable inspection of the invoices found at Exhibit A of the

Supplemental Memorandum would reveal that the Rein invoices are unrelated to any facts or

claims articulated in the Complaint, and that the $113,410.45 in billed amounts therein should

not be counted towards plaintiff’s damages in this dispute. Surely counsel would have

recognized those facts had he carefully reviewed Exhibit A before filing it with this Court. Such

inattentiveness is distressing, particularly when counsel was being afforded a second chance to

rectify glaring errors in the materials submitted the first time around.

Where does this leave us? Plaintiff has submitted documentation demonstrating that the

invoices sent to North America Materials under the Master Contract total $347,325.54, and that

plaintiff credited $25,200.00 against those invoices for periods in which the push boats were

down or otherwise being repaired. That leaves a net amount of unpaid invoices in the amount of

$322,125.54. These contract damages have been adequately proven on the record and will be

awarded against North America Materials via default judgment.

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum requests that this amount be augmented by an

award of attorney’s fees and costs. Nothing in that Supplemental Memorandum would enable

Case 1:08-cv-00005-WS-B Document 20 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 5
4 The Complaint alleges that on or about June 26, 2007, plaintiff received from

defendant a check in the amount of $73,100.54 in partial payment of services rendered under the

Master Contract, but that defendant stopped payment on the check before plaintiff deposited it in

its bank account. (Complaint, ¶¶ 12-13.) The Complaint does not allege that plaintiff did or

failed to do anything as a result of that bounced check, or that it incurred any damages

whatsoever arising from same other than the $25 bad check fee imposed by its financial

institution.

-4-

the Court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees that Natures Way has accrued in this action,

much less provide a legal basis for such an award. Going back to Natures Way’s initial filing on

the default judgment, it appears that plaintiff’s reasoning for seeking attorney’s fees is as

follows: “Plaintiff further request [sic] attorney fees pursuant to Code of Alabama § 6-5-285 in

the amount of $24,343.48, which is 1/3 of the amount of the bad check.” (Doc. 16, at 5.) This

argument does not withstand scrutiny.4

By its terms, § 6-5-285 merely authorizes, but does not require, an attorney’s fee award. 

Indeed, the statute provides that the holder of a worthless check has a right of action against the

person who uttered the check, and that the plaintiff “may recover such damages ..., including a

reasonable attorney fee, as the jury or court trying the case may assess.” Ala. Code § 6-5-285. 

Plaintiff’s request for $24,343.48 in attorney’s fees for the bad check claim is patently

unreasonable. Although plaintiff has submitted no evidence of its attorney’s fees, it would shock

the conscience if such fees approached that amount for the simple tasks of drafting a complaint,

effecting service of process, and then filing a motion and supporting documentation for entry of

default judgment. The Court will not award attorney’s fees that are grossly disproportionate to

any amount that plaintiff might reasonably have incurred. Furthermore, it is pellucidly clear that

the bad check cause of action is a mere tagalong claim and that the thrust of the Complaint is

plaintiff’s attempt to recover several hundred thousand dollars (including the amount of the bad

check) in contract damages for the unpaid invoices. The only damage that plaintiff appears to

have suffered from defendant’s submission of a bad check was a $25 fee from its financial

institution, which is included in the $322,125.54 figure cited above. It would be incongruous,

indeed, to award nearly $25,000 in attorney’s fees arising from legal maneuvering to recover a

$25 bad check fee. More to the point, the Court is convinced that all or substantially all of

plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in this action have been incurred in connection with the breach of

Case 1:08-cv-00005-WS-B Document 20 Filed 04/16/08 Page 4 of 5
5 Plaintiff’s initial memorandum in support of default judgment (but not the Motion

itself) also requests prejudgment interest; however, plaintiff makes no mention of same in its

Supplemental Memorandum, but instead limits its damage requests to unpaid invoices, attorney’s

fees, and costs.

-5-

contract claim, and that any attorney’s fees incurred specifically as to the bad-check claim have

been negligible, perhaps even nonexistent. Certainly, there is no evidence that plaintiff has

incurred any attorney’s fees relating to the bounced check claim. Accordingly, in its discretion

and pursuant to § 6-5-285, no attorney’s fees will be awarded on this claim. And, of course, no

attorney’s fees are compensable for the breach of contract claim animating this dispute. See

generally Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. City of Talladega, 342 So.2d 331, 338 (Ala. 1977) (reciting

general rule that attorney’s fees are not recoverable absent statute, contract, or recognized

equitable grounds).5

For all of the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the Order (doc. 18) dated

March 24, 2008, plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 15) is granted. A default

judgment will be entered in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $322,125.54.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2008.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00005-WS-B Document 20 Filed 04/16/08 Page 5 of 5