UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) FRIENDS CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action N o. 13-1436 (ESH) ) GENEVA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, et al. , ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Friends Christian Hi gh School filed the above-captio ned diversity action against defendants Geneva Financial Cons ultants, LLC (“Geneva”), Isam G hosh, and Mark Lezell, alleging various state law torts and seeking compensatory and p unitive damages. (Compl., Sept. 20, 2013 [ECF No. 1].) Geneva faile d to answer or otherwise re spond to the complaint, and the Clerk has declared it to be in de fault. (Clerk’s Entry of Defa ult, May 2, 2014 [ECF No. 26].) Friends Christian now seeks entr y of a default judgment against Geneva. 1 (Mot. for Default Judgment Against Defendant Geneva Financial Consultants, LLC, A pr. 27, 2015 [ECF No. 41].) For the reasons stated herein, th e motion will be granted in pa rt and denied in part, and a default judgment will be entered against Geneva and in favor of Friends Christian in the amount of $250,000.00.
BACKGROUND

1 Plaintiff has settled its claim s against Lezell and those clai ms have been dismissed, while its claims against Ghosh have bee n stayed pending resolution of ban kruptcy proceedings in the Eastern District of Virgini a. (Minute Order, Jan. 28, 2015.)2 Plaintiff is a California relig ious corporation that “engages in the business of religious instruction through various mediums , including educational inst itutions like a high school.” (Compl. ¶ 3.) On September 14, 2010, Friends Christian entered into a financing commitment agreement (“Financing Agreement”) with Geneva and Ghosh, who ad vertised himself as Geneva’s managing member. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 9.) Pursuant to the F inancing Agreement, Geneva and Ghosh were to secure $30 million in construction loan fundi ng for Friends Christian in exchange for $3 million in fees reduced by an initial escrow de posit of $250,000. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 10.) Exhibit A to the Financing Agreement was an Escrow Agree ment between Friends Christian and Lezell, an attorne y in the District of Columbia. (Compl. ¶ 13.) If financing could not be obtained by October 31, 2010 , the $250,000 in escrow was to be returned to Friends Christian. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Friends Christian wired $250,000 into Lezell’s escrow account on September 16, 2010. (Compl. ¶ 16.) No financing was e ver obtained and the escrow funds were never returned to Friends Christian. (Compl. ¶ 15.) On January 26, 2011, Friend s Christian tried to contact Ghosh to check on the current state of funding for the project. (Com pl. ¶ 18.) On February 1, 2011, Friends Christian made its initia l request for return of the es crow funds. (Compl. ¶ 19.) On September 8, 2011, Friends Christian asked Lezell for return of the escrow funds. (Compl. ¶ 20.) On or about March 21, 2012, Ghosh acknow ledged liability for th e escrow funds and that the escrow funds were to be returne d to Friends Christian. (Compl. ¶ 21.) On August 3, 2012, Friends Christian sent Lezell a nd Ghosh its final request for p ayment and received no response. (Compl. ¶ 22.) On September 20, 2013, Friends Christian filed suit against Ge neva, Ghosh and Lezell, alleging breach of contract, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduci ary duty, negligence, and3 fraud/intentional misreprese ntation and seeking return of the $ 250,000 it had put into the escrow account plus punitive damages. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-49.) Friends Chr istian served Geneva with a summons and a copy of the c omplaint on February 18, 2014. (Ret urn of Service/Affidavit, Feb. 21, 2014 [ECF No. 15].) After Genev a failed to timely file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, plaintiff filed its affidavit for entry of defau lt as to Geneva pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). 2 (Aff. for Entry of Defau lt, May 1, 2015 [ECF No. 24]). Defau lt was entered and, pursuant to Feder al Rule of Civil Procedure 55 (b)(2), 3 Friends Christian now moves for entry of a default j udgment. As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, Geneva has not entered an appearance nor f iled any pleadings or other pape rs. DISCUSSION Waiving any claim for punitive damages against Geneva, Friends Christian seeks a default judgment in the am ount of $250,000, the amount it put i nto the escrow account, plus costs. ( See Mot. for Default Judgment & E x. 1, ¶ 5 (Affidavit of Terry L. Goddard, Jr., Apr. 24, 2015) [ECF No. 41-1].) The “entry of a default judgment is not automatic.” Mwani v. bin Laden , 417 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2005). First, the proc edural posture of a default d oes not relieve a fed eral court of its “affirmative obligation” to determ ine whether it has subject-ma tter jurisdicti on over the action

. James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig , 82 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Here, the Court has jurisdiction over th is matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1 ), and venue is proper under 28

2 Rule 55(a) states: “When a party against whom a judgment for a ffirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise de fend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerks must enter the party’s defa ult.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
3 Rule 55(b)(2) allows a party t o “apply to the court for a defa ult judgment” against a party in default.4 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (“A civi l action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .”) Moreover, the determination of w hether default judgment is app ropriate is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Jackson v. Beech , 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Courts strongly favor resolution of disputes on their merits. Id . However, default judgment is available “when the adversary process has been halted because of an essen tially unresponsive party. . . . The diligent party must be protected lest he be faced with inte rminable delay and continued uncertainty as to his rights.” Jackson v. Beech , 636 F.2d 831, 835-36 (D.C. Cir . 1980) (internal quotations omitted). Where, as here, there is a complete “abse nce of any request to set aside the default or suggestion by the defe ndant that it has a meritoriou s defense, it is clear that the standard for default judgment has been satisfied.” Int’l Painters and Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. Auxier Drywall, LLC , 531 F. Supp. 2d 56, 57 (D.D.C. 2008) ( internal quotations omitted). Finally, while the ent ry of default establishes defendant's lia bility for the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, Adkins v. Teseo , 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001), it “does not . . . establish liability for the amount of damages claimed.” Boland v. Elite Terrazzo Flooring,
Inc ., 763 F. Supp. 2d 64, 67 (D.D.C. 2011). If necessary, a court may hold a hearing to “(A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) i nvestigate any ot her matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Here, though, no hearing is necessary as there are sufficient “detail ed affidavits [and] documentary evidence” to allow the Court to independently assess “the appro priate sum for the default judgment.” Flynn v. Mastro Masonry Contractors , 237 F. Supp. 2d 66, 69 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing United Artists Corp. v. Freeman , 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979)). Spe cifically, in supportof5 its motion for default judgment, F riends Christian has filed an affidavit from its attorney, Terry L. Goddard, Jr., and signed copies of the Financing and Escrow Agreements, substantiating its claim for compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000.00.
CONCLUSION Accordingly, and for the reasons s et forth above, the Court wil l grant Friends Christian’s motion for default judgment as t o liability and enter judgment in favor of Friends Christian and against Geneva in the am ount of $250,000.00. Friends Christian ’s request to include costs in the default judgment, however, will be denied without prejudice as it has not submitted any evidence to establish the amount of those costs. See, e.g. , Serv. Employees Int'l Union Nat. Indus. Pension
Fund v. Artharee , 942 F. Supp. 2d 27, 31 (D.D.C. 2013). A separate Order of Ju dgment accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge

Date: May 28, 2015