United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Law Offices of Christopher J. Trainor & Associates, P.C., and Christopher Trainor, Plaintiffs,
Tikee Pittman a/k/a Michael Patton, Crystal Finere Patton a/k/a Crystal Pittman, Ilegal Marketing, ilegalmarketing.com, PPC Fish, and ppcfish.com, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. #32)
SEAN F. COX, District Judge.
This case is, chiefly, a breach of contract action. Plaintiffs, the Law Offices of Christopher J. Trainor, P.C. and Christopher Trainor (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), allege that they entered into a contract with Defendants for the provision of internet marketing services. (Amended Complaint, Doc. #4). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants accepted Plaintiffs' pre-payment in the amount of $169, 000.00, but failed to fulfill their duties under the contract.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. (Doc. #32). The Clerk of the Court has entered default as to all Defendants, and no response to the motion has been filed. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion on May 21, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment.
It is well settled that a defendant who defaults "thereby admits all well pleaded' factual allegations contained in the complaint." City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 (2d Cir. 2011); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Cross, 441 F.Supp.2d 837, 848 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (citing Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110-11 (6th Cir. 1995)). Because the Clerk of the Court entered default against all Defendants, this Court shall accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as admitted.
Plaintiffs Christopher Trainor and Law Offices of Christopher J. Trainor & Associates, P.C. are citizens of Michigan. (Amd. Compl., Doc. #4 at ¶¶ 1-2). Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 4, 2014, (Doc. #1), and an Amended Complaint on November 14, 2014. (Doc. #4).
There are six named Defendants in this case. Two Defendants are individuals: Tikee Pittman a/k/a Michael Patton, and Crystal Finere Patton a/k/a Crystal Pittman. (Doc. #4 at ¶¶ 3, 5). Both individual Defendants are citizens of California, and are allegedly husband and wife. (Doc. #4 at ¶ 7).
Two Defendants appear to be businesses: Ilegal Marketing and PPC Fish. Plaintiffs allege that Ilegal Marketing is an "unincorporated artificial association" with a primary place of business in Fayetteville, North Carolina. (Doc. #4 at ¶ 9). Plaintiffs allege that PPC Fish is also an unincorporated artificial association with a primary place of business in San Jacinto, California. (Doc. #4 at ¶ 13). Plaintiffs allege that Tikee Pittman and Crystal Patton are owners and/or partners and/or agents of Defendants Ilegal Marketing and PPC Fish. (Doc. #4 at ¶¶ 4, 6).
The last two Defendants are website addresses: Ilegalmarketing.com, and PPCFish.com. Plaintiffs allege that these website addresses are also "unincorporated artificial associations" with their primary places of business in Fayetteville, North Carolina and San Jacinto, California, respectively. (Doc. #4 at ¶¶ 9, 13). Plaintiffs also allege that Tikee Pittman and Crystal Patton are owners and/or partners and/or agents of Defendants Ilegalmarketing.com and PPCFish.com. (Doc. #4 at ¶¶ 4, 6).
Plaintiffs allege that on December 2, 2013, Defendants "submitted to Plaintiffs a one year Internet Marketing Proposal." (Amd. Compl. at ¶ 27). Plaintiffs claim that they "accepted Defendants' proposal and pre-paid the agreed upon price of $169, 000." (Amd. Compl. at ¶ 28). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "have failed to provide the promised services and is [sic] in breach of the parties' agreement." (Amd. Compl. at ¶ 29).
Plaintiffs have attached two exhibits to the Amended Complaint. Exhibit A is a "Pay Per Call Advertising Contra" that appears to have been executed by Christopher Trainor and Michael Patton on September 20, 2013. (Amd. Compl., Ex. A). It appears to state that Defendant Ilegal Marketing would provide personal injury pay per lead calls to Plaintiffs in exchange for a "total fee" of $1000, as well as $30 per call, and a "call management fee" of $100 per month. (Amd. Compl. at Ex. A).
Plaintiffs' Exhibit B is an "Internet Marketing Proposal." It appears to detail the types of Internet Marketing services that Ilegal Marketing provides. (Amd. Compl. at Ex. B). On the last page of Exhibit B is a section entitled "Terms & Agreement." It appears to provide that the monthly cost for the services detailed in the Proposal is $19, 500. (Amd. Compl. at Ex. B).
At the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion, Plaintiffs' counsel provided the Court with the affidavit of Plaintiff Christopher J. Trainor ("Trainor"). In his affidavit, Trainor states that
After [Defendants] submitted a one-year Internet Marketing Proposal on or about December 2, 2013, the Law Offices of Christopher J. Trainor & Associates pre-paid $169, 000.00 to [Defendants] for their ...