United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
CRAFTLINE GRAPHICS, INC., and KAPPA GRAPHICS, L.P., Plaintiffs,
TOTAL PRESS SALES & SERVICE, LLC, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
A. BRADY JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Craftline
Graphics, Inc.'s (“Craftline”) and Kappa
Graphics, L.P.'s (“Kappa”) Evidence in
Support of Request for Damages in Connection with their
Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 32) (the “Evidence
Submission”). The Evidence Submission is the
culmination of a long process whereby Plaintiffs have
repeatedly attempted to obtain default judgment against
Defendant Total Press Sales & Service, LLC. (See
ECF Nos. 11, 17, 19, 25). Unfortunately, Plaintiffs'
filings seeking entry of default judgment and damages have
failed to satisfy legal requirements. The most recent Order
and Opinion from this Court (ECF No. 29) granted Plaintiffs
additional time to submit admissible evidence related to the
claim for damages related to Kappa's anticipated repair
costs. (Id. at 17-18). Plaintiffs were subsequently
granted an additional ten days to submit such evidence. (ECF
No. 31). Having reviewed the Evidence Submission, the Court
concludes that the evidence submitted does not satisfy the
threshold for admissible evidence. Accordingly, judgment will
be entered in favor of the Plaintiffs in the amount of $1.00
as nominal damages based upon the absence of evidentiary
proof of actual damages.
EVIDENCE SUBMISSION 
nine-page Evidence Submission is accompanied by two
affidavits. The first is the affidavit of Robert Cook,
Craftline's Vice President of Operations (ECF No. 32-2).
Cook testified to the allegations in Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, setting forth Defendant's errors and omissions
in disassembling and reassembling the printing press that is
the subject of this lawsuit (the “Press”). (ECF
No. 32-2 at 1-3). Cook then attempted to designate evidence
in support of two categories of damages. First, Cook
testified that Craftline paid ManRoland, Roland Graphics
Services, and other vendors a total of $60, 972.73 because of
Defendant's breach. Then, Cook testified that he
“spoke with Richard Grobarek and other ManRoland
technicians about the problems [Defendant] was causing caused
[sic] during the reassembly, installation, and repair of the
Press. The total amount of ManRoland's estimates is $500,
759.91.” (Id. at 4). Appended to Cook's
affidavit is the affidavit of David J. Bosko, Vice President
of Finance for Craftline. (Id. at 6-7). Bosko's
affidavit serves as Craftline's attempt to authenticate
documents via an affidavit from a records custodian. Bosko
attached two sets of documents to his affidavit: (1) an
account payment summary reflecting the $60, 972.73 amount in
Cook's affidavit (Id. at 8); and (2)
correspondence and estimates from ManRoland (Id. at
9-19) (the “ManRoland Estimates”).
second affidavit is from Timothy J. Cotter, Jr., Senior Vice
President of Operations for Kappa (ECF No. 32-1). The key
part of Cotter's affidavit is paragraph 10, wherein
Paragraph 3., Contract Price and Payment of the
Contract, required Kappa to pay [Defendant] a total of $294,
450, in accordance with the milestone schedule found at
Paragraph 3. (b). Of the $294, 450.00 due to [Defendant],
Kappa paid $213, 000 in 2015 and $40, 000 in 2016, for a
total of $253, 000.00. None of the money was
returned by [Defendant] to Kappa.
(Id. at 3) (original emphasis). Appended to
Cotter's affidavit is the affidavit of Martin Genello,
Controller for Kappa (Id. at 5-6). Like Bosko's
affidavit, Genello's affidavit serves as a records
custodian affidavit. Attached to Genello's affidavit is
summary of payments Kappa made to Defendant (Id. at
7). The total of those payments is $253, 000.00.
purpose of this Court's May 24, 2019, Opinion and Order,
other than to dispose of those claimed damages that were not
supported by law, was to give Plaintiffs another opportunity
to submit admissible evidence regarding the anticipated cost
to repair the Press. From the beginning of their attempts to
obtain default judgment, Plaintiffs have relied on the
ManRoland Estimates to support these anticipated costs.
Therefore, the primary, and in fact only, task for Plaintiffs
following the May 24, 2019, Opinion and Order was to present
the ManRoland Estimates in admissible form and justify the
necessity and reasonableness of the amounts shown therein.
Plaintiffs have failed to do so.
upon default the factual allegations of a complaint relating
to liability are taken as true, those allegations relating to
the amount of damages suffered are ordinarily not. See
United States v. Di Mucci, 879 F.2d 1488, 1497 (7th Cir.
1989). Once the default is established, and thus liability,
the plaintiff still must establish his entitlement to the
relief he seeks. In re Catt, 368 F.3d 789, 793 (7th
Cir. 2004). The plaintiff must provide evidence of damages.
10 Moore's Federal Practice, § 55.32[d]
at p. 55-45 (3d ed. 2013) (“The claimant must establish
the amount of damages . . .”). Where a party uses
affidavits to support its claim for damages, the evidentiary
material offered should consist of material within the
personal knowledge of the affiant and not hearsay, and
attached exhibits should be accompanied by sworn statements
of the circumstances that would qualify them as full
exhibits. Oceanic Trading Corp. v. Vessel Diana, 423
F.2d 1, 4 (2nd Cir. 1970). Judgment cannot be entered based
on claims of damages that are unsupported by admissible
evidence. See Cent. Laborers' Pension, Welfare and
Annuity Funds v. Stormer Excavating, Inc., 2008 WL
5142159 (S.D. Ill. 2008).
first attempted to introduce the ManRoland Estimates through
the affidavit of their counsel, Kevin Podlaski
(“Podlaski”) (ECF Nos. 12-5, 17-4, 20-3), and
then through the affidavit of Robert Towns, President and
General Counsel for Spartan Organization, Inc. (ECF No.
26-3). Plaintiffs now attempt to introduce the documents
through the Cook/Bosko affidavits. However, these repeated
attempts are little more than different verses to the same
song. In each case, Plaintiffs wholly fail to introduce the
ManRoland Estimates in a way that either establishes their
authenticity or resolves the clear hearsay problem. Simply
put, the ManRoland Estimates are no more admissible in their
current form than they were when they were submitted for the
first time eighteen months ago.
of evidence is governed by Article IX of the Federal Rules of
Evidence. Rule 902(11) states that domestic records of a
regularly conducted activity, i.e., business records, are
self-authenticating if they meet the requirements of Rule
803(6)(A)-(C) and if the compliance with those requirements
is shown by a certification of a custodian or other ...