Stephenson Ex Rel. Estate of MJK Clearing, Inc. v. El-Batrawi
524 F.3d 907 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When entering a default judgment for an unliquidated sum, a district court must make specific factual findings and provide clear calculations to support the damages award; generic references to voluminous evidentiary documents are insufficient and may warrant remand for a proper determination.
Facts:
- Ramy El-Batrawi was the CEO, chairman of the board, and a major stockholder in GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (GENI).
- Beginning in 1999, El-Batrawi and others engaged in a stock-loan scheme involving GENI stock, lending shares through a chain of brokers, including MJK Clearing, Inc. (MJK), in exchange for cash collateral.
- The scheme's participants manipulated the price of GENI stock by keeping shares out of public circulation, causing the stock's price to artificially inflate.
- As the stock price rose, brokers in the lending chain were required to send more cash collateral down the chain to El-Batrawi and his associates.
- Following the market downturn after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the stock manipulation scheme collapsed.
- A key broker in the chain, Native Nations, failed and did not return over $200 million in cash collateral it owed to MJK.
- Unable to absorb this significant financial loss, MJK ceased its operations and was forced into a liquidation proceeding.
Procedural Posture:
- The Trustee for the Estate of MJK Clearing, Inc. (MJK Trustee) filed an adversary proceeding against Ramy El-Batrawi and other defendants in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota.
- The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
- The MJK Trustee served El-Batrawi by mail in November 2002 and later by publication in the Los Angeles Times in mid-2003.
- After El-Batrawi failed to appear, the MJK Trustee requested an entry of default, which the Clerk of Court entered on August 22, 2003.
- In June 2006, after the MJK Trustee moved for a default judgment, El-Batrawi made his first appearance and filed a motion to set aside the entry of default.
- A U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation to deny El-Batrawi's motion and grant the MJK Trustee's motion for default judgment.
- On March 8, 2007, the district court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
- The district court entered a final judgment against El-Batrawi for $67.5 million on April 20, 2007.
- El-Batrawi (appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his motion to set aside default and the entry of the default judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by entering a default judgment for $67.5 million without making specific findings to support its damages calculation, instead relying on general references to expert reports and bankruptcy filings?
Opinions:
Majority - Gritzner, District Judge
Yes. While the district court correctly denied the motion to set aside the entry of default, it erred in its determination of damages. A district court must provide a clear evidentiary basis and calculations for a damages award in a default judgment when the sum is uncertain. The court first affirmed the denial of El-Batrawi's motion to set aside default, applying a three-factor test. It found El-Batrawi's conduct was blameworthy, as he was properly served and appeared to be evading the lawsuit. It also found El-Batrawi failed to present a meritorious defense, offering only 'bald allegations' without factual support. Finally, allowing him to enter the case after a three-year delay would cause concrete prejudice to the MJK Trustee. However, the court vacated the monetary judgment itself. When damages are not for a sum certain, they must be proven. The district court awarded $67.5 million based on general references to expert reports and bankruptcy filings without explaining its calculations or reconciling inconsistencies between the evidence and the final award. This lack of specific findings made appellate review impossible, necessitating a remand for the district court to properly determine and document the amount of damages.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between liability and damages in the context of a default judgment. It affirms that a defendant's culpable failure to appear can cement their liability, making it very difficult to set aside an entry of default. However, it also strongly protects a defaulting defendant's due process rights regarding the amount of the judgment. The ruling serves as a procedural guide for district courts, mandating that they 'show their work' when calculating unliquidated damages, thereby ensuring that awards are based on proven facts rather than mere plaintiff allegations and creating a record sufficient for appellate review.
Unlock the full brief for Stephenson Ex Rel. Estate of MJK Clearing, Inc. v. El-Batrawi