Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Bonanza International, Inc. And Stewart Investments, Incorporated v. Joseph Charles Corceller, Jr.

480 F.2d 613

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-08-06
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff brought this action for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract in the operation of a low-cost steak dinner restaurant. After a full hearing, the Court entered a preliminary injunction against defendant. Thereafter, the Court entered a default judgment on the merits against defendant for his failure to file an answer for more than ten months after the expiration of the allotted time under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, his flagrant violations of the Court’s orders, and the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bonanza International, Inc. And Stewart Investments, Incorporated v. Joseph Charles Corceller, Jr.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
25 opinions
BONANZA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CORCELLER,480 F.2d 613(5th Cir. 1973)
BONANZA INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND STEWART INVESTMENTS, INCORPORATED,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. JOSEPH CHARLES CORCELLER, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 73-1629.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 5, 1973.
Rehearing Denied August 6, 1973.
Page 614
Louis R. Koerner, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.

Phillip A. Wittmann, Michael R. Fontham, New Orleans, La., for Bonanza Intern., Inc.

Herschel L. Abbott, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Stewart Investments, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Plaintiff brought this action for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract in the operation of a low-cost steak dinner restaurant. After a full hearing, the Court entered a preliminary injunction against defendant. Thereafter, the Court entered a default judgment on the merits against defendant for his failure to file an answer for more than ten months after the expiration of the allotted time under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, his flagrant violations of the Court's orders, and the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

[2] We find no abuse of the discretion permitted the trial court on matters of this kind. Moldwood Corp. v. A. B. Stutts,410 F.2d 351(5th Cir. 1969).

[3] The defendant failed to file an answer for nearly eleven months after the appropriate deadline. Rule55, F.R.Civ.P., permits entry of a default as the consequence of failure to comply with Rule13, F.R.Civ.P., requiring an answer within twenty days after service of the summons and complaint.See3 W. Barron A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice Procedure, § 1211 et seq. The record reveals that the defendant had ample notice as required by Rule 55.

[4] There is evidence, moreover, that defendant refused to obey the Court's orders, and such action constitutes sufficient grounds for a default judgment.SeeMcGrady v. D'Andrea Electric, Inc.,434 F.2d 1000(5th Cir. 1970); Flaksa v. Little River Marine Construction Co.,389 F.2d 885(5th Cir.), cert. denied,392 U.S. 928,88 S.Ct. 2287,20 L.Ed.2d 1387(1968).

[5] Defendant elected not to appear at a full hearing on the question of damages. Damages awarded pursuant to default cannot be questioned for the first time upon appeal. Hopkins v. McClure,148 F.2d 67(10th Cir. 1945).

[6] Affirmed.Page 617
  1. Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩