Minh Dung Aluminum Co. v. Aluminum Alloys Mfg. LLC

Minh Dung Aluminum Co. v. Aluminum Alloys Mfg. LLC

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Before the Court is Plaintiff Minh Dung Aluminum Company, LTD ("Plaintiff")'s motion for entry of default judgment against Defendant Aluminum Alloys MFG LLC ("Defendant") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1). (Doc. No. 14.) Because Defendant has yet to appear or defend in this action, no opposition to the motion has been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part and enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $244,372.20.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action on September 25, 2020, alleging that Defendant breached contracts for the sale and delivery of aluminum ingots. (Doc. No. 1.) According to the complaint and exhibits thereto, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into two contracts under which Defendant—a Pennsylvania-based company—agreed to sell and ship aluminum ingots to Plaintiff—a Vietnamese company—in exchange for $118,978.20.¹ (Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 10, 26, 38.) Defendant subsequently shipped four containers to Plaintiff, two of which arrived [*2]  at Haiphong Port on February 12, 2020, filled with hazardous waste rather than ingots. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 39, 41.) When Plaintiff informed Defendant about the hazardous waste, Defendant acknowledged that it had shipped nonconforming goods and promised to issue a refund and arrange for the return of waste to the United States. (Id. ¶¶ 42-43, 47-48.) The other two containers were apparently rerouted back to the United States.

Plaintiff's complaint asserts that Defendant has neither refunded the $118,978.20 payment for the ingots, reshipped the correct goods, arranged for return of the hazardous waste, nor provided any instructions to Plaintiff concerning the return of the waste as promised by Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 58-79.) In support of its claims, Plaintiff has provided exhibits establishing that Defendant admitted that it failed to send the ingots and incorrectly sent waste. Plaintiff's complaint seeks damages in the amount of $118,978.20—representing the amount it paid for the ingots—along with other relief, including: (1) an order directing Defendant to arrange and pay for the return shipment of the nonconforming goods to the United States; (2) economic and other compensatory damages; [*3]  (3) incidental and consequential damages; (4) punitive damages; and (5) pre and post-judgment interest and costs. (Id. at 17.)

Plaintiff served Defendant with the summons and complaint on October 21, 2020. (Doc. No. 5.) Defendant did not respond to the complaint, Plaintiff moved for the entry of default (Doc. No. 7), and the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant on January 20, 2021 (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiff then filed motions seeking a declaration that its destruction of the nonconforming hazardous waste would not constitute acceptance or ownership. (Doc. Nos. 10, 12.) Defendant did not respond to those motions, and the Court determined that it could not grant the sought-for relief because doing so would constitute an advisory opinion. (Doc. No. 13 at 3-4.) Plaintiff then filed the instant motion for default judgment. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff seeks a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $245,097.20 representing: (1) the unrecovered $118,978.20 it paid to Defendant for the sale of the ingots; (2) $58,394.00 in costs associated with the continued storage of the nonconforming hazardous waste; (3) $67,000.00 in lost profits stemming from the loss of a sale due to Defendant's [*4]  breach; and (4) $725.00 in fees, including the filing fee Plaintiff paid to institute this action. (Id. at 3-4.)²

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.