IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0294-WS-N

 )

BULLDOG MARINE, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment against all defendants save Pedro Baez. (Doc. 59). Default has 

previously been entered against all other defendants. (Doc. 55). 

“The defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well-pleaded

allegations of fact .... A default judgment is unassailable on the merits but only so 

far as it is supported by well-pleaded allegations, assumed to be true.” Nishimatsu 

Construction Co. v. Houston National Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). 

Thus, “a default judgment cannot stand on a complaint that fails to state a claim.” 

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1371 n.41 (11th Cir. 1997). 

Rather, “before entering a default judgment for damages, the district court must 

ensure that the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint ... actually state a cause 

of action and that there is a substantive, sufficient basis in the pleadings for the 

particular relief sought.” Tyco Fire & Security, LLC v. Alcocer, 218 Fed. Appx. 

860, 863 (11th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original). 

As to defendant Bulldog Marine, Inc. (“Bulldog, Inc.”), the second 

amended complaint alleges that Bulldog, Inc. purchased a worker’s compensation 

insurance policy from the plaintiff but has not paid the contractually agreed 

premium for such coverage. (Doc. 8 at 4-6). Count One alleges a cause of action 

Case 1:14-cv-00294-WS-N Document 61 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 3
2

for breach of contract and seeks recovery of the unpaid premium. (Id. at 6-7). 

The well-pleaded allegations of the amended complaint actually state such a cause 

of action and provide a substantive, sufficient basis for the relief sought. 

The Court, however, cannot make a similar pronouncement as to the 

remaining claims implicated by the instant motion. Counts Two and Three of the 

amended complaint seek the same sum from Bulldog, Inc. on theories of unjust 

enrichment and account stated. (Doc. 8 at 7-8). Counts Four through Nine seek 

recovery of the same sum from three other entity defendants on theories of de 

facto merger and successor liability. (Id. at 8-14). Counts Ten and Eleven seek 

recovery of the same sum from two individual defendants under a theory of 

piercing the corporate veil. (Id. at 14-16). Count Thirteen seeks recovery of the 

same sum from all defendants under a theory of fraudulent transfer. (Id. at 18-19). 

The plaintiff has not addressed these claims in its motion for default judgment, and 

the Court declines to undertake on the plaintiff’s behalf the task of identifying the 

elements of each such claim and ascertaining whether the allegations of the 

complaint suffice to support default judgment as to them. 

The Court further notes that, although default judgment may not be entered 

against an infant or incompetent unless appropriately represented in the action,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), the plaintiff has not addressed the status of either 

individual defendant. 

The Court further notes that, rather than addressing the calculation of 

interest (as by providing by affidavit a per diem amount accruing), the plaintiff 

requests leave to prove up interest at a later date. (Doc. 59 at 2). The plaintiff 

apparently also seeks leave to prove up contractual attorney’s fees at a later date. 

(Doc. 59-1, ¶ 17). This is inappropriate. See, e.g., Trustmark National Bank v. 

Molleston, 2011 WL 1364223 at *2 (S.D. Ala. 2011). 

The Court declines to consider the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment 

in piecemeal fashion. Accordingly, the motion is denied, without prejudice to the 

plaintiff’s ability to file a thorough, properly supported motion. 

Case 1:14-cv-00294-WS-N Document 61 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 3
3

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00294-WS-N Document 61 Filed 02/02/15 Page 3 of 3