United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. UUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Crossclaim Plaintiff Benson
Integrated Marketing Solutions, Inc. (“Benson
IMS”) Motion for Default Judgment  against
Defendant and Crossclaim Defendant Hakeem O. Disu
January 4, 2017, Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of
America”) filed its Complaint in Interpleader pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (the “Complaint”) to
determine the proper ownership, distribution of, and
Interpleader-Defendants' entitlement to, assets held by
Bank of America in an account (the “Account”)
. The Interpleader Defendants are (1) Disu, (2) Benson
IMS, (3) Michael Brian Benson (“Benson”), (4)
David Smith and (5) The Vanguard Group, Inc. The Interpleader
Defendants assert conflicting claims to the Account funds.
February 2, 2017, Benson and Benson IMS filed their Answer to
Complaint, Claim to the Interpled Funds, and Cross-Claim 
(the “Answer and Crossclaim”). Benson and Benson
IMS allege that, on July 11, 2016, Disu or a person
associated with him sent an email that was made to appear as
if it originated from Benson's email account. ( ¶
2). Benson is the CEO of Benson IMS. The email purporting to
have been sent by Benson was sent to Melissa Rains, the
accounts payable supervisor at Benson IMS. ( ¶ 2).
The email directed Ms. Rain to wire $37, 864.00 of Benson IMS
funds to an account at Chase Bank in the name of one Kristy
Lee Schott. The funds were supposed to pay an invoice, which
was determined to be fraudulent. (Id.).
IMS alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(c)-(d) (Counts 1 and 2); violation of the Georgia
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A
§ 16-14-4(b)-(c) (Counts 3 and 4); fraud, conspiracy to
commit fraud, and aiding and abetting fraud (Count 5); unjust
enrichment (Count 6); attorney's fees and costs under
O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (Count 7);
and punitive and treble damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. §
51-12-5.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (Count 8). ().
February 3, 2017, Benson and Benson IMS's Answer and
Crossclaim was served on Diso by mail  at the address
Disu specified in his Waiver of Service . Disu's
answer or other responsive pleading was required to be filed
by February 27, 2017. An answer or other responsive pleading
was not filed by the required filing date.
March 17, 2017, Bank of America requested the Clerk of Court
to enter default against Disu for failure to plead or
otherwise defend this action . Default was entered
against Disu on April 3, 2017.
1, 2017, Benson and Benson IMS filed their Motion for Default
Judgment against Disu  seeking entry of judgment in the
amount of $27, 885.45. On May 17, 2017, Benson IMS filed its
Notice of Filing, attaching a May 12, 2017, certified mail
receipt showing the Motion for Default Judgment was served on
Disu. (). The certified mail receipt was signed by Disu.
55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
default judgment may be entered against defaulting defendants
(1) By the Clerk. If the
plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can
be made certain by computation, the clerk-on the
plaintiff's request, with an affidavit showing the amount
due-must enter judgment for that amount and costs against a
defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is
neither a minor nor an incompetent person.
(2) By the Court. In all other
cases, the party must apply to the court for a default
judgment. . . . If the party against whom a default judgment
is sought has appeared personally or by a representative,
that party or its representative must be served with written
notice of the application at least 7 days before the hearing.
The court may ...