IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:20-cv-23235-RNS

LEZER CORP.

a Delaware corporation,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NOBLE PARTNERS LLC,

a Maine limited liability company, d/b/a

NOBLE MEDICAL SUPPLY;

SEAN GRADY, an individual,

 Defendants.

____________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 

FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS,

SEAN GRADY AND NOBLE PARTNERS LLC D/B/A NOBLE MEDICAL SUPPLY

Plaintiff, LEZER CORP., a Delaware corporation (“Plaintiff” or “Lezer”), by and through 

undersigned counsel, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2), 

hereby files its Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment (the “Motion for Default Final 

Judgment”) against Defendants, SEAN GRADY (“Grady”) and NOBLE PARTNERS LLC d/b/a 

NOBLE MEDICAL SUPPLY (“Noble”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and in support thereof 

states as follows: 

BACKGROUND

1. On August 4, 2020, the Plaintiff commenced the instant action against the 

Defendants [D.E. 1], as amended on August 13, 2020 (the “Amended Complaint”) [D.E. 8] for 

breach of contract, conversion, fraud, unjust enrichment, piercing the corporate veil, civil 

conspiracy, constructive trust and civil theft.

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2020 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

2. In the interest of brevity, the Plaintiff incorporates by reference and respectfully 

refers the Court and interested parties to the complete background and allegations set forth in the 

Amended Complaint.

3. On September 19, 2020, the Defendants were duly served with the Summons and 

Amended Complaint [D.E. 14 and 15]. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, Defendants had twenty-one

(21) days from the date of service to file a responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint.

4. On October 14, 2020, as a result of Defendants’ failure to file a responsive pleading 

or otherwise defend this matter on or before October 13, 2020 as required by Rule 13, Plaintiff 

filed and served Motions for Clerk’s Default Entry against both Defendants [D.E. 17 and 18].

5. On October 15, 2020, the Clerk entered a Default against both Defendants [D.E. 

19].

6. On October 25, 2020, in compliance with this Court’s Order on Default Judgment 

Procedure [D.E. 20], Plaintiff filed and served its Notice of Joint Liability [D.E. 21], which 

Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein.

7. The Defendants have not entered an appearance in this case or otherwise filed a 

motion to vacate the Clerk’s Default, and thus Defendants remain in default. 

8. Accordingly, the allegations of the Complaint are now deemed admitted by 

Defendants and Plaintiff is entitled to Default Final Judgment against Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

9. Rule 12(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant 

shall serve its answer to a complaint within twenty-one days of service of the latter. As set forth

above, the Amended Complaint was filed on August 13, 2020 and the Summons was served on 

September 19, 2020, which notified the Defendants’ of their obligation to file an answer to the 

Amended Complaint with the Clerk of Court and serve a copy of same upon Plaintiff’s counsel 

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2020 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

within 21-days from the date of service—on or before October 13, 2020. To date, nothing has 

been filed on behalf of the Defendants.

10. Plaintiff recognizes that entry of a default judgment against a defendant is a severe 

remedy. See, e.g., E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Moffatt, 460 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1972). However, 

when a party does not respond to a properly served complaint and ignores a duly issued and 

properly served summons of a court, a default judgment, though drastic, is the appropriate and,

indeed, the only recourse. See In re Knight, 833 F.2d 1515, 1516 (11th Cir. 1987) (where party 

offers no good reason for late filing of answer, entry of default judgment appropriate); Nat'l Bank 

of Fort Worth v. Cook, 117 F.R.D. 390 (N.D.Tex.1987) (default judgment appropriate where party 

served has failed to answer).

11. When the court determines that a defendant is in default, the factual allegations of 

the complaint are taken as true and this rule applies whether the complaint seeks legal or equitable 

relief. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Kitco of Nevada, Inc., 612 F.Supp. 1282 (D.C.Minn.1985). Here, 

Plaintiff’s well-plead Amended Complaint adequately states a claim for which relief may be 

granted. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir.1975). 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint adequately alleges a claim for conversion, fraud, and unjust 

enrichment concerning the Deposit and sets forth the damages owed to the Plaintiff. Further, 

Plaintiff alleges that Noble is a mere alter ego of Grady and that the Defendants conspired and 

intentionally acted to deprive Plaintiff of the Deposit, as required to assert a claim of civil theft in 

violation of Fla. Stat. § 812.04. Having not appeared, Defendants are deemed to have admitted the 

well-pleads facts set forth in the Amended Complaint.

12. Contemporaneously with this Motion for Default Final Judgment, Plaintiff is 

submitting to the Court a proposed Order of Default Final Judgment, Default Final Judgment, 

Affidavit of Proof in support of this Motion, and Affidavits of Costs and Attorney’s Fees, which

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2020 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

demonstrates to the Court the just and reasonable amount of damages, including attorneys’ fees 

and costs, suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ conduct. 

13. As set forth in the Amended Complaint, the Defendants are jointly and severally 

liable for the damages suffered by Plaintiff. See Fla. Stat. § 768.81(3).

WHEREFORE, for the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff, LEZER CORP., respectfully requests 

this Court enter: (i) an Order Granting this Motion in the proposed form attached as Exhibit “A”; 

(ii) a Default Final Judgment in the proposed form attached as Exhibit “B”, against SEAN 

GRADY and NOBLE PARTNERS LLC d/b/a NOBLE MEDICAL SUPPLY, jointly and 

severally, and (iii) grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: November 10, 2020, Respectfully submitted,

READ LAW PLLC

25 SE 2nd Avenue, Eighth Floor

Miami, Florida 33131

Phone: (305) 209-2131

asr@alexisreadlaw.com

By: /s/ Alexis S. Read

Alexis S. Read, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 98084

/s/ Noah Siegel

Noah Siegel

Il. Bar No. 6327603

GUTNICKI LLP

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

4711 Golf Road, Suite 200

Skokie, Illinois 60076

Telephone: (847) 745-6594

akaye@gutnicki.com

nsiegel@gutnicki.com

Attorneys for Lezer Corp.

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2020 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 10, 2020, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was served via e-mail to those parties required to receive e-mail service pursuant to Fla. 

R. Jud. Admin. 2.516, and/or by U.S. Mail to all parties on the CM/ECF Service List:

Sean Grady

12 Wellstone Drive

Portland, ME 04013

Noble Partners LLC 

d/b/a Noble Medical Supply

Attn: Sean Grady, President

12 Wellstone Drive

Portland, ME 04013

By: /s/ Alexis S. Read

Alexis S. Read, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 98084

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2020 Page 5 of 5