United States v. Associated Telecommunications Management Services, LLC
6:15-cv-00080
M.D. Fla.Apr 1, 2015Background
- The United States sought to collect an FCC forfeiture arising from eight unauthorized transfers of control of domestic common‑carrier lines consummated between Sept. 1 and Nov. 30, 2009.
- Defendants are Associated Telecommunications Management Services, LLC (ATMS) and eight wholly owned ATMS subsidiaries that acquired the carriers without prior FCC approval required by 47 U.S.C. § 214 and 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.03–63.04.
- The FCC determined the transfers were willful, proposed an $8,000 forfeiture per transaction (total $64,000), denied defendants’ reduction request, and issued a forfeiture order requiring payment by Dec. 19, 2014; defendants did not pay.
- The United States filed suit to collect the forfeiture; the Clerk entered default against ATMS and the eight subsidiaries after they failed to appear or defend.
- The government moved for default judgment and submitted a CFO declaration establishing the $64,000 sum certain; it also sought $600 in service costs but did not allocate that amount per defendant.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting default judgment for the $64,000 forfeiture (allocated as $8,000 judgments tied to ATMS and each subsidiary jointly and severally) and directing the government to file a bill of costs to permit taxation of service costs per defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default establishes liability for the FCC forfeiture | Default establishes the well‑pled allegations that defendants violated §214 and FCC regs and are liable for the $64,000 forfeiture | No response/appearance (no arguments presented) | Default admitted the factual allegations; liability established for the assessed forfeiture |
| Whether the forfeiture amount is a "sum certain" suitable for default judgment | FCC declaration and exhibits show a specific $64,000 forfeiture amount | No response | Court found the $64,000 is a sum certain and appropriate for default judgment |
| Whether post‑judgment costs for service of process may be awarded as requested | Government claims $600 total in recoverable service costs (~$67 per defendant) | No response; court questioned allocation and sufficiency of itemization | Court recommended government file a detailed bill of costs allocating service fees per defendant before taxation by the Clerk |
| Whether default judgment relief must conform to pleadings and rule 54(c) | Government sought monetary judgment matching the forfeiture order and costs | N/A | Recommended default judgments in amounts matching the forfeiture (each $8,000 jointly and severally with ATMS and each subsidiary) and costs to be taxed after itemization |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must contain more than conclusory allegations; guides default‑judgment sufficiency review)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (defendant not held to admit facts not well‑pleaded; default judgment requires adequate factual basis)
- Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359 (entry of default establishes well‑pled allegations as true for liability)
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Griffin, 290 F.Supp.2d 1340 (district court may enter default judgment against properly served defendant who fails to defend)