United States v. Cloude, 3:17-cv-00838

Government sued Charlotte A. Cloude on March 24, 2017 for default on a Federal Direct Consolidation promissory note; summons was served May 11, 2017.
Cloude made no appearance or answer; Clerk entered default on June 5, 2017 and Government moved for default judgment the same day.
The complaint and attached exhibits show Cloude executed a promissory note (disbursed $2,625.00) and the Department of Education is the note holder.
As of February 21, 2017, Government’s records (Certificate of Indebtedness) showed Cloude owed $3,854.59 (principal and interest) with interest thereafter accruing at $0.20 per day.
The Government sought unpaid principal and interest, pre-judgment interest from Feb 21, 2017, post-judgment interest, and costs; Cloude did not contest servicemember status, capacity, or the substance of the claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment is procedurally warranted	Cloude failed to appear or answer despite service; default entered	No response or defense asserted	Procedurally warranted — Lindsey factors favor default judgment
Whether complaint states a sufficient substantive basis for relief	Complaint and exhibits establish holder, execution, and default of promissory note	No defense or challenge to pleadings	Substantively warranted — well-pleaded facts suffice under Rule 8 and Nishimatsu
Whether amount is a sum certain permitting judgment without hearing	Certificate of Indebtedness establishes $3,854.59 and per-day interest	No contest presented	Sum certain — no hearing required; damages calculable from records
Remedies and interest rates available	Request judgment for principal, pre-judgment interest ($0.20/day from Feb 21, 2017), post-judgment interest, and costs	No competing claim	Granted: $3,854.59 principal/interest as of Feb 21, 2017; $64.20 pre-judgment interest; post-judgment interest at statutory rate; costs awarded

Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1989) (default judgments are drastic and disfavored)
Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 1996) (default not automatic entitlement to judgment)
Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 1998) (factors for procedural appropriateness of default judgment)
Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (default does not relieve court of reviewing sufficiency of pleadings)
United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854 (5th Cir. 1979) (damages normally require hearing unless ascertainable by computation)
James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 1993) (damages calculable from records may obviate hearing)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 8 pleading standards)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain more than conclusory allegations)