Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PREMIER DEVELOPMENT AND §

INVESTMENT, INC., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-0405-L

§

EQUITILINK, L.L.C., et al., §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, filed August 11, 2005. Plaintiff

Premier Development and Investment, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Premier”), filed its original petition in

state court on January 22, 2004. Premier sued Equitilink , L. L. C. (“Equitilink”), James Mahoney

(“J. Mahoney”), Thomas Mahoney (“T. Mahoney”), and Shamrock Holdings (“Shamrock”)

(collectively “Defendants”) for breach of contract. Defendants were served with process and filed

their original answer on February 20, 2004. The case was removed to federal court on February 25,

2004. 

On May 5, 2005, the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, and ordered

Defendants to retain new counsel by June 6, 2005, and cause counsel to enter a written appearance

with the clerk of this court. The court advised Defendants that if they failed to comply, their

defenses would be stricken without further notice, and that the court would conduct further

proceedings, such as entry of a default judgment in accordance with the applicable law. Defendants

did not retain counsel and on July 28, 2005, the court struck Defendants’ Original Answer and held

Defendants in default. The court determines that its order of July 28, 2005, was overly broad, as the

Case 3:04-cv-00405-BH Document 29 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 159
1

Although individual defendants may proceed pro se, a corporation is not permitted to do so. See

Donovan v. Road Rangers Country Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (quoting

K.M.A., Inc., v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 652 F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir. 1982)).

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2

court’s order should have been restricted to corporate defendants Equitilink and Shamrock.1

Accordingly, the court vacates that portion of its July 28, 2005 order striking Defendants’ Original

Answer insofar as it pertains to Defendants James Mahoney and Thomas Mahoney and holding them

in default. Defendants’ Original Answer is stricken as to Equitilink and Shamrock only and the

court holds Equitilink and Shamrock in default. The court reinstates Defendants’ Original

Answer to the extent it relates to Defendants James and Thomas Mahoney. 

The court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations of Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Motion

for Default Judgment and Appendix to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. The record reflects

that on October 1, 2003, Premier contracted with Equitilink for Equitilink to assist them in a

strategic investor relations campaign. See Plaintiff’s Original Petition at 2. James Mahoney and

Thomas Mahoney are the owners of Equitilink and Shamrock. Plaintiff’s App. at 31. As

consideration, Equitilink received an initial payment of 600,000 common shares of Premier and a

promise for an additional 200,000 after the commencement of the third month of service. Plaintiff’s

Original Petition at 2. Premier terminated the contract on November 17, 2003, for non-performance.

Id. The Appendix attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment sets forth the amount of

damages incurred. Premier suffered economic damages in the amount of $810,000 — 600,000

shares paid to Equitilink multiplied by $1.35 (3-day average closing price on September 1, 2004).

Plaintiff’s App. at 11, 28. The court finds this amount reasonable. 

Premier also sets forth a claim for $50,000 in attorney’s fees. This claim for attorney’s fees

is based on the affidavit of Plaintiff’s attorney Andrew L. Jones. Plaintiff’s App. at 29. Mr. Jones

Case 3:04-cv-00405-BH Document 29 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 160
2

The court takes judicial notice of the State Bar of Texas information regarding Mr. Jones pursuant

to Fed. R. Evid. 201, as it meets the standard set forth in the rule.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3

avers that he spent 200 hours prosecuting this case at the rate of $250 per hour. Although Mr. Jones

did not state the length of time he has been practicing law, information retrieved from the State Bar

of Texas indicates he has been a lawyer since November 3, 1999.2 Mr. Jones did not include

invoices, time records, or other information for the court to determine the reasonableness and

necessity of his services. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has requested $50,000 in attorney’s fees for the entire case. The court

has corrected that portion of its order of July 28, 2005 that held the individual Defendants in default.

The court has no time records or billing statements and cannot ascertain whether the entire $50,000

should be awarded or adjusted because of time spent on matters related solely to the individual

Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to its motion for default judgment with

respect to attorney’s fees and provide the court with information that supports its request for the

entire $50,000. If Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to the entire $50,000 because the individual

Defendants are owners of the corporate Defendants and that their activities are so intertwined and

interrelated to those of the corporate Defendants as to be inseparable, Plaintiff must specify the facts

supporting such contention. 

After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s motion, the record and applicable law, the court

grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Equitilink, L.L.C. and Shamrock

Case 3:04-cv-00405-BH Document 29 Filed 09/13/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 161
3

The judgment will be joint and several as to Equitilink and Shamrock.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 4

Holdings.3 Once the court receives the supplemental information, it will issue judgment, as

appropriate, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

It is so ordered this 13th of September, 2005.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00405-BH Document 29 Filed 09/13/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 162