United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Ryan Vickers's Motion for Default
Judgment. Doc. 12. For the reasons stated below, the Motion
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
Vickers filed this lawsuit against Defendants on December 30,
2017. Doc. 1, Compl. Mr. Vickers alleges that Defendants
failed to pay him minimum and overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §
201 et seq. (FLSA). Id. ¶ 23. On
January 29, 2018, Mr. Vickers filed a Motion for Substitute
Service of Process against Defendants, Doc. 5, which the
Court granted, Doc. 6. Substitute service was made on all
Defendants on February 3. Docs. 7-9. Defendants neither
submitted an answer nor otherwise made an appearance in this
case despite having been served.
February 27, 2018, Mr. Vickers requested the Clerk enter
default judgment against all Defendants, Doc. 10, and the
Clerk did so the same day, Doc. 11. On May 23, 2018, Mr.
Vickers filed this Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. 12,
which is ripe for review.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court
to enter a default judgment against a defendant who has
failed to plead or otherwise defend upon motion of the
plaintiff. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b). That being said,
“[d]efault judgments are a drastic remedy, not favored
by the Federal Rules and resorted to by courts only in
extreme situations.” Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican
Homestead & Sav. Ass'n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th
Cir. 1989). A party is not entitled to a default judgment
merely because the defendant is technically in default.
Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996).
“Rather, a default judgment is generally committed to
the discretion of the district court.” United
States v. 1998 Freightliner Vin #: 1FUYCZYB3WP886986,
548 F.Supp.2d 381, 384 (W.D. Tex. 2008).
determining whether a default judgment should be entered
against a defendant, courts have developed a three-part
analysis. Id. First, courts consider whether the
entry of default judgment is procedurally warranted. See
Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir.
1998). The factors relevant to this inquiry include:
 whether material issues of fact are at issue;  whether
there has been substantial prejudice;  whether the grounds
for default are clearly established; [4 ]whether the default
was caused by a good faith mistake or excusable neglect; 
the harshness of a default judgment; and  whether the
court would think itself obliged to set aside the default on
the defendant's motion.
courts assess the substantive merits of the plaintiff's
claims and determine whether there is a sufficient basis in
the pleadings for the judgment. See Nishimatsu Constr.
Co., Ltd. v. Hous. Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206
(5th Cir. 1975)(noting that “default is not treated as
an absolute confession by the defendant of his liability and
of the plaintiff's right to recover”). In doing so,
courts are to assume that due to its default, the defendant
admits all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's
complaint. Id. However, a “defendant is not
held to admit facts that are not-well pleaded or to admit
conclusions of law.” Id.
courts determine “what form of relief, if any, the
[plaintiff] should receive.” 1998
Freightliner, 548 F.Supp.2d at 384. Normally, damages
are not to be awarded without a hearing or a demonstration by
detailed affidavits establishing the necessary facts. See
United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th
Cir. 1979). But if the amount of damages can be determined
with mathematical calculation by reference to the pleadings
and supporting documents, a hearing is unnecessary. James
v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993).