CDBD Holdings, Inc. v. Slavutsky

Background

CDBD Holdings, Inc. filed a motion for default judgment on August 23, 2024, and later informed the court that the motion was unopposed. The motion sought amounts based on a note obligation, including unpaid principal, interest through November 16, 2017, and default interest after that date.

Court’s concerns

Judge Moses concluded that the court could not resolve the motion on the existing record because CDBD had not sufficiently explained the amounts it sought. The amended complaint, demand notice, proposed judgment, and affidavit stated that the unpaid principal balance was $5,905,869.00. The court noted that this amount differed from the $5,859,500.00 aggregate principal amount stated in the November 7, 2017 note agreement and its schedule, and required CDBD to explain the difference.

The court also required CDBD to explain how it calculated $288,569.37 in interest through November 16, 2017, including the starting date and calculation method. The court understood that the pre-default interest rate was 7%. It further required CDBD to explain and update its default-interest calculation. The court understood the default-interest rate to be 3% plus the interest rate otherwise accruing or payable on the obligation.

Ruling and required submission

The court did not grant or deny the default-judgment motion. It reminded CDBD that, after a default, factual allegations supporting liability may be accepted as true, but damages still require an evidentiary basis. CDBD was ordered to submit admissible evidence—such as affidavits, declarations, authenticated business records, or other exhibits—supporting the requested damages by December 15, 2024. If CDBD used an Excel spreadsheet or comparable program for the calculations, it was also required to email the electronic file in its native format to the court’s chambers. Judge Moses signed the order.