Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Oct. 4, 2023

Entsorgafin S.p.A v. Entsorga West Virginia, LLC

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-01559
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ContractSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Entsorgafin v. Entsorga West Virginia, Judge Liman granted summary judgment on damages and awarded Entsorgafin $1,566,440.32.

Who this affects

Entsorgafin S.P.A. received a $1,566,440.32 damages award against Entsorga West Virginia, LLC, and the case was closed.

What happened

Entsorgafin S.P.A. sued Entsorga West Virginia, LLC, alleging that Entsorga failed to make payments required by a settlement agreement and related promissory notes. The court had already granted summary judgment establishing Entsorga’s liability.

Entsorgafin then sought summary judgment on the amount of damages, including unpaid principal, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Entsorga did not oppose the motion, and the court found that the supporting evidence established the amounts owed and that the fees and costs were reasonable.

Judge Liman granted Entsorgafin’s motion for summary judgment on damages, awarded $1,566,440.32, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Entsorgafin S.p.A v. Entsorga West Virginia, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01559
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Oct. 4, 2023

Background

Entsorgafin alleged that Entsorga West Virginia, LLC failed to comply with a settlement agreement resolving an earlier dispute involving a licensing and business-services agreement and a supply agreement. Under the settlement agreement, Entsorga was required to deliver promissory notes requiring periodic payments. The agreement allowed Entsorgafin to accelerate the amounts due if Entsorga defaulted. Entsorga initially complied but stopped making required payments beginning November 1, 2021. Entsorgafin then declared an event of default.

On April 13, 2023, the court granted Entsorgafin’s unopposed motion for summary judgment on liability. It determined that Entsorgafin was entitled to $1,171,245.96 in principal, after accounting for amounts already paid. The court also determined that Entsorgafin was entitled to interest at a default rate of 1% per month and reasonable attorneys’ fees, but it did not yet enter judgment because Entsorgafin had not submitted evidence establishing the amounts of interest, fees, and costs.

Damages motion

Entsorgafin moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment on damages. It submitted a statement of material facts, a declaration, billing records, cost records, and a legal memorandum. Entsorga did not respond.

The court explained that an unopposed summary-judgment motion still must be supported by evidence showing that no material factual dispute exists. The court found that the evidence established Entsorga’s default and failure to cure it. Under the notes and settlement agreement, Entsorgafin was entitled to the unpaid principal, interest at 1% per month, and reasonable collection costs and attorneys’ fees.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Entsorgafin’s motion for summary judgment on damages. The court awarded $239,276.31 in interest through October 4, 2023, $155,375 in attorneys’ fees, and $543.05 in costs, in addition to the previously determined principal. The total award was $1,566,440.32. The court directed the clerk to prepare a judgment, close the docket for the damages motion, and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.