Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Benson

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

January 23, 2018

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL BRIAN BENSON, BENSON INTEGRATED MARKETING SOLUTIONS, INC., HAKEEM O. DISU, DAVID SMITH, and THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. UUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Crossclaim Plaintiff Benson Integrated Marketing Solutions, Inc. (“Benson IMS”) Motion for Default Judgment [19] against Defendant and Crossclaim Defendant Hakeem O. Disu (“Disu”).

         I. BACKGROUND

         On 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”) [1]. 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.

         On February 2, 2017, Benson and Benson IMS filed their Answer to Complaint, Claim to the Interpled Funds, and Cross-Claim [9] (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. ([9] ¶ 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. ([9] ¶ 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.).

         Benson 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). ([9]).

         On February 3, 2017, Benson and Benson IMS's Answer and Crossclaim was served on Diso by mail [12] at the address Disu specified in his Waiver of Service [11]. 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.

         On 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 [17]. Default was entered against Disu on April 3, 2017.

         On May 1, 2017, Benson and Benson IMS filed their Motion for Default Judgment against Disu [19] 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. ([22]). The certified mail receipt was signed by Disu. ([22.1]).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that default judgment may be entered against defaulting defendants as follows:

(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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.