United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
FUZHOU MAOZEN IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD., DALIAN JIN YU METAL PRODUCTS CO. LTD., JIANGSU ZHONGHENG PET ARTICLES JOINT-STOCK CO., LTD., JIANGXI YIHAN IMP & EXP TRADE CO., LTD., and SHANGHAI TOYS IMP. & EXP. CO. LTD., Plaintiffs,
PETEDGE, INC., NORTHEAST RELIABLE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a PETEDGE ADMIN SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for a
default judgment against Defendants. [ECF No. 11]. For the
following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
April 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this action asserting claims
for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum
meruit against Defendants PetEdge, Inc.
(“PetEdge”) and Northeast Reliable Services, Inc.
d/b/a PetEdge Admin Services (“Northeast
“Defendants”). [ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 37-56]. On May
7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit of service asserting
that Mea Provencher, an individual designated by law to
accept service of process on behalf of PetEdge and Northeast
Reliable, had been served with process on April 27, 2018 at
100 Cummings Center Suite 307B in Beverly, Massachusetts.
[ECF No. 6]. Defendants were required to answer or otherwise
respond to the complaint by May 18, 2018, and have failed to
appear, plead, or otherwise defend this action. On June 28,
2018, Plaintiffs filed a request for notice of default, and
the clerk entered Defendants' default on June 29, 2018.
[ECF Nos. 7, 8]. In accordance with the Court's Standing
Order [ECF No. 10], Plaintiffs filed a motion for default
judgment on July 30, 2018,  and properly supported their
motion with affidavits showing the amount due to each
Plaintiff and a judgment form. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
55(b)(1); [ECF Nos. 11- 16, 17-1].
request a default judgment holding Defendants liable for
their contractually obligated payments for goods ordered by
Defendants and shipped by Plaintiffs in the amounts of $362,
597.04 to Fuzhou Maozen; $66, 078.66 to Dalian; $93, 003.52
to Jiangsu Zhongheng; $82, 235.12 to Jiangxi Yihan; and $129,
678.96 to Shanghai Toys, plus post-judgment interest on each
amount as determined by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Rule 55, the entry of default against each Defendant in this
action constitutes an admission of liability. Sec. &
Exch. Comm'n v. Esposito, 260 F.Supp.3d 79, 84 (D.
Mass. 2017) (quoting Vazquez-Baldonado v. Domenech,
792 F.Supp.2d 218, 221 (D.P.R. 2011)). Defendants are
therefore “taken to have conceded the truth of the
factual allegations in the This Order concerns only the two
defendants served with process pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4. [ECF No. 6].
as establishing the grounds for liability.”
Id. (quoting In re The Home Restaurants,
Inc., 285 F.3d 111, 114 (1st Cir. 2002)). “On a
motion for a default judgment, however, it is appropriate to
independently ‘examine a plaintiff's complaint,
taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, to
determine whether it alleges a cause of action.'”
Id. (quoting Ramos- Falcon v. Autoridad de
Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 2002)).
Accordingly, the following summary of facts is drawn
primarily from Plaintiffs' complaint.
are various Chinese corporations involved in the business of
manufacturing and selling pet accessories. [ECF No. 1 ¶
12]. Defendants are Massachusetts corporations headquartered
in Beverly, Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 4, 7. At the
time of the filing of this action, PetEdge was in the
business of supplying wholesale grooming supplies and
discount pet products, and Northeast Reliable was responsible
for processing and funding the purchase orders that PetEdge
placed with third party manufacturers of pet accessories,
including Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 18-19.
Between October 4, 2016 and November 6, 2017, PetEdge, via
Northeast Reliable, sent several purchase orders to
Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 20-36. The purchase
orders indicated product types, quantities, and agreed upon
prices for various pet accessories that PetEdge and Northeast
Reliable wanted to purchase. Id. Defendants issued
29 purchase orders to Plaintiff Fuzhou Maozen Import &
Export Co. (“Fuzhou Maozen”), 7 purchase orders
to Plaintiff Dalian Jin Yu Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(“Dalian”), 7 purchase orders to Plaintiff
Jiangsu Zhongheng Pet Articles Joint-Stock Co., Ltd.
(“Jiangsu Zhongheng”), 7 purchase orders to
Plaintiff Jiangxi Yihan Imp & Exp Trade Co., Ltd.
(“Jiangxi Yihan”), and 6 orders to Shanghai Toys
Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd. (“Shanghai Toys”).
Id. Plaintiffs delivered all products identified in
the purchase orders to PetEdge, and PetEdge accepted the
product deliveries. Id Defendants did not make any
payment for the pet accessories that they ordered despite
Plaintiffs' full performance of their contractual
obligations, and neither PetEdge nor Northeast Reliable has
acknowledged Plaintiffs' payment requests. [ECF No. 1
initial matter, the Court “has an affirmative duty to
assure itself that it has jurisdiction over both the subject
matter and the parties” before entering a default
judgment. Plasterers' and Cement Masons' Local 40
Pension Fund v. Capital Curbing Corp., No. 09-236, 2010
WL 1424722, at *2 (D.R.I. Mar. 12, 2010), aff d and
adopted, 2010 WL 1376293 (D.R.I. Apr. 6, 2010). This
Court has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1332, as “the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000 … and
is between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a
foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). This Court
also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
Defendants are Massachusetts corporations headquartered in
default judgment may be entered without a hearing under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b) if “a court has jurisdiction over
the subject matter and parties, the allegations in the
complaint state a specific, cognizable claim for relief, and
the defaulted party had fair notice of its opportunity to
object.” In re The Home Restaurants, Inc., 285
F.3d at 114. As the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and Defendants have defaulted in
this case, the Court will consider whether the allegations in
the complaint state a specific cognizable claim for relief.
Complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and quantum meruit against Defendants.
[ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 37-56].
breach of contract claim under Massachusetts law requires
proof that the parties had a valid agreement, the defendant
breached the agreement, and the plaintiff sustained
damages” as a result of the defendant's breach.
Guarriello v. Family Endowment Partners, LP, No.
14-cv-13351-IT, 2016 WL 7799639, at *12 (D. Mass. Aug. 10,
2016) (citing Michelson v. Dig. Fin. Servs., 167
F.3d 715, 720 (1st Cir. 1999)); see also Pavao v.
Camara, No. 12-11028-DJC, 2014 WL 2453090, at *1-2 (D.
Mass. May 29, 2014) (explaining that plaintiff made a
sufficient showing as to the prima facie case for breach of
contract where plaintiff alleged ...