Kenneth N. Whitehurst, III, Esq., AUST, VSB No. 48919

Cecelia Ann Weschler, Esq., VSB No. 28245

Nicholas S. Herron, Esq., NJSB No. 03007-2008, PASB No. 208988

Office of the United States Trustee

200 Granby Street, Room 625

Norfolk, VA 23510

(757) 441-6012

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

NORFOLK DIVISION

In re:

Edrie A. Pfeiffer, Esquire,

Garfinkel and Pfeiffer, P.C. doing business as 

Hampton Roads Legal Services,

Prince Law LLC, and

Prince Law LLP

 Miscellaneous 16-00702-FJS

 Proceeding 

 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Judy A. Robbins, United States Trustee for Region Four, by counsel, pursuant to Rule 

7055(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Local Bankruptcy Rule 7055-1(B), 

hereby moves the court for entry of default judgment against respondents Prince Law, LLC and 

Prince Law, LLP. In support of her Motion, the United States Trustee states: 

Procedural History

1. On June 14, 2016, the United States Trustee filed fifteen Motions to Examine 

Debtors’ Transactions with their Attorneys and for Sanctions, Civil Penalties and Disgorgement 

of Fees against Edrie A. Pfeiffer (“Pfeiffer”), Garfinkel & Pfeiffer, P.C., dba Hampton Roads 

Legal Services (“HRLS”), and Prince Law, LLC (the “Motions”).1

2. After a preliminary hearing on the Motions, they were consolidated for 

administrative purposes into the above-styled Miscellaneous Proceeding by Order entered July 

29, 2016 (the “Order”). (Docket Entry 2).

 1 Although filed in fifteen separate cases, the Motions are identical. A list of the fifteen cases by debtor name and 

case number is filed herewith as Exhibit A. The Exhibit also lists the total amounts paid by the debtors, or on their 

behalf, to Prince Law, LLP and Prince Law, LLC, as stated, under penalty of perjury, in each debtor’s Statement of 

Financial Affairs.

Case 16-00702-FJS Doc 24 Filed 11/14/16 Entered 11/14/16 16:40:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 6
2

3. On August 4, 2016, the United States Trustee filed an Amended Motion, 

consolidating the matters alleged in the Motions into this Miscellaneous Proceeding, and added

Prince Law, LLP as a respondent. 

4. Pursuant to the Order, the United States Trustee served the Amended Motion and 

Order on Prince Law, LLC and Prince Law, LLP in accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004 on 

August 4, 2016. (Docket Entry 4).

5. The Order required that Prince Law, LLP and Prince Law, LLC each file a 

response to the Amended Motion within twenty-eight days after its filing. (Docket Entry 2, p. 2).

6. Prince Law, LLC failed to file a response to the Amended Motion.

7. Prince Law, LLP failed to file a response to the Amended Motion.

8. The United States Trustee has made no agreement with Prince Law, LLC or 

Prince Law, LLP to excuse or postpose the filing of a responsive pleading.

9. Prince Law, LLC is neither a minor nor an incompetent person, and is not in the 

Military Service of the United States as defined in The Service Members Civil Relief Act of 

2003, 50 U.S.C. Appendix §§501-596.

10. Prince Law, LLP is neither a minor nor an incompetent person, and is not in the 

Military Service of the United States as defined in The Service Members Civil Relief Act of 

2003, 50 U.S.C. Appendix §§501-596.

11. On October 21, 2016, the Clerk of this Court entered default against Prince Law, 

LLC and Prince Law, LLP, pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055 and the Order. See (Docket 

Entries 9, 10).

12. On September 8, 2016, this Court entered a Consent Order Granting Relief in In 

re: Fuller, Case No. 15-33456-KLP, permanently enjoining Prince Law, LLC from filing 

Case 16-00702-FJS Doc 24 Filed 11/14/16 Entered 11/14/16 16:40:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 6
3

bankruptcy cases in the Eastern District of Virginia, both individually, and through any company 

owned or operated by it. A copy of the Order is filed herewith as Exhibit B.

Argument

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055, incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, provides for the entry of default 

judgment when a party against whom a judgment for relief is sought has failed to plead or 

otherwise defend. See e.g,. In re Miller, 145 B.R. 845 (E.D.Va. 1991) (J. Tice). It is made 

applicable to these contested matters by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c). 

A defendant in default admits the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Fed. R. 

Bankr. P. 7008(b)(6); see also, Partington v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 443 F.3d 334, 

341 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting default has the effect of admitting the factual allegations in the 

complaint); Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001). Default does 

not, however, constitute an admission of the conclusions of law and is not to be "treated as an 

absolute confession by the defendant of his liability and of the plaintiff’s right to recover." Ryan, 

253 F.3d at 780 (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 

1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Instead, the court must "determine whether the well-pleaded allegations in 

[the plaintiff’s] complaint support the relief sought in [the] action." Id.

Thus, for a party to be entitled to default judgment, the court must be satisfied that three 

elements have been established: 1. Service of the complaint was effectuated in accordance with 

the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; 2. The party against whom default is sought has 

failed to plead or otherwise defend; and 3. That the well-plead allegations in the movant’s 

complaint support the relief sought. See In re Hetrick, 379 B.R. 612, 618-19 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 

2007) (internal citations omitted).

Case 16-00702-FJS Doc 24 Filed 11/14/16 Entered 11/14/16 16:40:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 6
4

Here, the Order and Amended Motion were timely served on Prince Law, LLP and Prince 

Law, LLC via first class mail postage fully prepaid as directed in the Order. Neither Prince Law, 

LLC, nor Prince Law, LLP filed a response, answer, or otherwise defended against the Amended 

Motion. Both are in default. (Docket Entries 9, 10). The Amended Motion sets forth specific 

allegations against Prince Law meriting the investigation into their transactions with the debtors 

named in Exhibit A, and disgorgement of all fees paid by them to Prince Law, as well as their 

violation of 11 U.S.C. §526.

The well-plead allegations contained in the Amended Motion support the relief sought in 

this action and are deemed admitted. See e.g., In re Ryan, 2011 WL 3320590 *9 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 

August 11, 2011) (The U.S. Trustee’s well plead complaint and deemed admitted allegations 

satisfy the court that the U.S. Trustee is entitled to relief). Specifically, the United States Trustee

has alleged, and it is deemed admitted, that Prince Law, LLC and Prince Law, LLP (collectively 

referred to in the Amended Motion as “Prince Law”) were engaged in a clear and consistent 

pattern of violating 11 US.C. §526 as “debt relief agencies” whose clients were “assisted 

persons” as those terms are defined in the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(12A) and (3).

Accordingly, this Court may impose an appropriate civil penalty against Prince Law, LLP and 

Prince Law, LLC. 11 U.S.C. §526(c)(5).

The United States Trustee has alleged, and it is deemed admitted, that the fees paid to 

Prince Law, LLP and Prince Law, LLC exceed the reasonable value of the services rendered by 

Prince Law. The fees paid to Prince Law are set out in detail in Exhibit A, and total $22,331.00.

WHEREFORE, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Enter default judgment against Prince Law, LLC and Prince Law, LLP;

B. order that all legal fees paid to Prince Law, LLC and Prince Law, LLP by the 

Case 16-00702-FJS Doc 24 Filed 11/14/16 Entered 11/14/16 16:40:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 6
5

debtors or on their behalf, as set forth in Exhibit A, be returned to the debtors pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. §329;

C. order that Prince Law, LLP and Prince Law, LLC are to be jointly and severally 

liable for any return of fees so ordered;

D. order that Prince Law, LLP and Prince Law, LLC be jointly and severally liable 

for a civil penalty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §526(c)(5), in an amount not less than equal to the 

amounts paid by the debtors to Prince Law, LLP and Prince Law, LLC, as set forth in Exhibit A, 

and payable to each debtor in the amount reflected; 

E. order that all payments to be made by Prince Law, LLC and Prince Law, LLP be 

made within sixty days of entry of the Court’s judgement order; and

F. grant such other and further relief as the Court may find appropriate and just. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

Judy A. Robbins 

U.S. Trustee for Region Four 

By: /s/ Kenneth N. Whitehurst, III

Kenneth N. Whitehurst, III 

Assistant United States Trustee 

Case 16-00702-FJS Doc 24 Filed 11/14/16 Entered 11/14/16 16:40:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 6
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 14th day of November 2016, service of this Motion on all attorney Users in 

this case was accomplished through the Notice of Electronic Filing, pursuant to CM/ECF Policy 

9 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Case Management 

Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) Policy Statement, Version 09/04/09. I further certify that the 

Motion was served in accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004 on the same date by First Class 

U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

Prince Law Firm, LLC 

David L. Prince, Manager 

7800 Peters Road, Suite C200 

Plantation, FL 33324 

Prince Law Firm, LLC 

Filings, Inc., Registered Agent 

3732 N.W. 16th Street 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33311

Prince Law, LLP

F.J. Murphy Pepper, Registered Agent

4106 Waterswatch Dr.

Midlothian, Virginia 23113

Prince Law, LLP

David L. Prince, Partner and Managing Member 

7800 Peters Road, Suite C200 

Plantation, FL 33324 

Prince Law, LLP

c/o Jason Searns, Partner and General Counsel 

P.O. Box 19430

Plantation, FL 33317

/s/ Kenneth N. Whitehurst, III

Case 16-00702-FJS Doc 24 Filed 11/14/16 Entered 11/14/16 16:40:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 6