The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NATHAN PRYER NO. 24-00357-BAJ-SDJ
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion For Default Judgment
Against Nathan Pryer (Doc. 16). The Motion is unopposed. For the following
reasons, the Government’s Motion will be GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Defendant Nathan Pryer’s alleged failure to repay a
Small Business Administration loan (the “SBA Loan”) under the terms of a note (the
“Note”). (Doc. 1). The SBA provided Defendant a SBA Loan in the amount of $25,000.
(Doc. 1-3). The Government alleges that under the terms of the Note, Defendant was
required to begin monthly payments in the amount of $89.00 beginning five months
from the date of the loan, or February 28, 2016. (/d. at ¥ 6).
The Government alleges that Defendant became delinquent on the SBA Loan
on October 28, 2018, with a principal balance due of $23,082.14. Ud. at § 7). The
Government alleges that under the terms of the Note, interest of 1.563% is due from
the date of disbursement, and continues to accrue on the unpaid balance of the debt
at the rate of 1.563% per annum. (/d. at | 11-12).
Despite a demand letter, the initiation of this lawsuit, the issuance of a Clerk’s
Entry of Default Judgment, and the Government’s filing of the current Motion for
Default Judgment, Defendant has failed to appear or respond to this lawsuit in any
manner and has yet to pay the Government under the Note. Accordingly, and for the
reasons described below, the Court finds that default judgment is warranted in the
Government's favor.
On May 30, 2019, the Department of Treasury Bureau of the Fiscal Service
(“Fiscal Service”) sent a demand letter to Defendant demanding payment. (Doc. 1 at
{ 8; Doc. 1-6). On May 6, 2024, the Government filed this lawsuit. (Doc. 1). On
July 12, 2024, Defendant executed a Waiver of the Service of Summons, which stated
that Defendant understood that he must file and serve an answer or motion under
Rule 12 within 60 days from July 12, 2024. (Doc. 10). More than 60 days have passed,
and Defendant has failed to respond to the Government’s Complaint in any manner.
On September 25, 2024, the Government moved for a Clerk’s Entry of Default.
(Doc. 14). The Clerk entered default against Defendant. (Doc. 15). The Government
then filed the instant motion, seeking default judgment in its favor in the amount of:
A. $23,082.14 in unpaid principal;
B. Pre-judgment interest, calculated at the annual rate of 1.56% from
October 23, 2018, through the date of this Order;
C. Post-judgment interest at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, computed
daily and compounded annually until fully paid; and
D. Costs of suit in the amount of $405.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
and 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
For the following reasons, the Government’s Motion will be GRANTED.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has adopted a three-
step process to obtain a default judgment. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown,
84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996). First, a default occurs when a party “has failed to
plead or otherwise defend” against an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Next, an entry of
default must be entered by the clerk when the default is shown “by affidavit or
otherwise.” See id.; New York Life, 84 F.3d at 141. Third, a party may apply to the
court for a default judgment after an entry of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); New York
Life, 84 F.3d at 141. .
After a party files for a default judgment, courts must apply a two-part process
to determine whether a default judgment should be entered. First, a court must
consider whether the entry of default judgment is appropriate under the
circumstances. Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998). Several
factors are relevant to this inquiry, including: (1) whether there are material issues
of fact at issue, (2) whether there has been substantial prejudice, (3) whether the
grounds for default have been clearly established, (4) whether the default was caused
by excusable neglect or good faith mistake, (5) the harshness of the default judgment,
and (6) whether the court would think itself obliged to set aside the default on a
motion by Defendant. Id.
Second, the court must assess the merits of the plaintiffs claims and determine
whether the plaintiff has a claim for relief. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l
Bank, 515 F. 2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975); Hamdan v. Tiger Bros. Food Mart, Inc.,
No. CV 15-00412, 2016 WL 1192679, at *2 (M.D. La. Mar. 22, 2016).
Ill. DISCUSSION
The Government asks the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against
Defendant. (Doc. 16). For the following reasons, the Court finds that default judgment
is warranted.
A. Default Judgment is Appropriate under the Lindsey Factors.
The Court must first decide whether the entry of default judgment is
appropriate under the circumstances by considering the Lindsey factors. First, there
are no material facts in dispute because Defendant failed to file an Answer or motion
under Rule 12. Second, it is undisputed that Defendant has not responded to any of
the Government’s attempts to contact him. Third, the grounds for granting a default
judgment against Defendant are clearly established, as evidenced by the procedural
history of this case and the Clerk’s entry of default. Fourth, the Court has no basis to
find that Defendant's failure to respond was the result of a good faith mistake or
excusable neglect because he has failed to respond to the Government or to the Court.
Fifth, Defendant’s failure to file any responsive pleading or motion mitigates the
harshness of a default judgment. Finally, the Court is not aware of any facts that
would lead it to set aside the default judgment if challenged by Defendant. The Court
therefore finds that the six Lindsey factors weigh in favor of entry of default against
Defendant.
B. The Sufficiency of the Pleadings.
Next, the Court must determine whether the Government’s pleadings provide
a sufficient basis for a default judgement. Here, the Government sued Defendant for
repayment of the SBA Loan under the terms of the Note. (Doc. 1). The parties
executed a valid and binding contract—the Note. (Doc. 1-3). Defendant breached the
Note by failing to pay the Government under its terms. (Doc. 1 at § 7). The
Government suffered damages due to Defendant’s failure to pay. (Id.). Thus, the
Government has demonstrated a sufficient basis for default on its Complaint.
C. Damages.
A defaulting defendant “concedes the truth of the allegations of the Complaint
concerning defendant’s liability, but not damages.’ Ins. Co. of the W. v.
H & G Contractors, Inc., 2011 WL 4738197, *4 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 5, 2011). A court’s
award of damages in a default judgment must be determined after a hearing, unless
the amount claimed can be demonstrated “by detailed affidavits establishing the
necessary facts.” United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979).
If a court can mathematically calculate the amount of damages based on the
pleadings and supporting documents, a hearing 1s
unnecessary. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. vu. Alima, No. 3:13-CV-0889-B,
2014 WL 1632158, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2014) (citing James uv. Frame, 6 F.3d 307,
310 (5th Cir. 1993)).
A review of the record reflects that the elements of damages are
mathematically calculable based on the supporting documentation submitted; thus,
a hearing is not necessary. (Doc. 1-3—Doc. 1-5). The Note reflects that Pryer borrowed
$25,000 under the SBA Loan. (Doc. 1-3). The Fiscal Service records reflect that
Defendant became delinquent on the SBA Loan on October 23, 2018, with a balance
due of $23,082.14. (Doc. 1-5). The Note dictates the interest owed. (Doc. 1-3).
Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1961 provides that “[i]Jnterest shall be allowed on any
money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.” Thus, the Court will
order post-judgment interest.
Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(2) provides that “[a] judgment for costs, when
awarded in favor of the United States in an action brought by the United States, may
include an amount equal to the filing fee prescribed under section 1914(a) of this
title.” Thus, the Court will order Defendant to pay the Government’s $405 filing fee.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s Motion For Default Judgment
Against Nathan Pryer (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that default judgment is hereby entered in
favor of the Government.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Nathan Pryer shall pay the
Government:
A. $23,082.14 in unpaid principal;
B. Pre-judgment interest calculated at the annual rate of 1.56% from
October 28, 2018, through the date of this Order;
C. Post-judgment interest at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, computed
daily and compounded annually until fully paid; and
D. Costs of suit in the amount of $405.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
and 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the
above-captioned matter be and is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Judgment shall be issued separately.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this '™ i y of August, 2025
JUDGE BRIAN A. fos ON
UNITED STATES DISPRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA