MEMORANDUM & ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION This case arises under the trust provisions of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(4) (“PACA”), a remedial statute designed to protect sellers of perishable commodities who, without the statute, would lack any way to secure themselves against nonpayment by their customers. By this action, Plaintiffs Marchella of NY, Inc. (“Marchella”) and Northeast Banana Corp (“NE Banana”, and together with Marchella, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to recover monies from Defendants Mejia Tropical Products LLC (“Mejia Tropical”) and Marvin E. Mejia (“Mejia” and with Mejia Tropical, the “Defendants”), jointly and severally and pursuant to PACA’s trust provisions, for wholesale quantities of produce Plaintiffs delivered to Defendants. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 11.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (hereafter, the “Motion”). (See ECF No. 45; see also Support Memo, ECF No. 49.) Despite service of the Motion upon the Defendants, the Motion is unopposed. (See Aff. of Serv., ECF No. 50; Letter, ECF No. 51 (noting Defendants’ failure to timely oppose Motion).) For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. BACKGROUND I. Relevant Factual Background The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts giving rise to this action. For the reader’s convenience, it is sufficient to state that Plaintiffs sold bananas and other produce (hereafter, the “Produce”) to Defendants on a wholesale basis and subject to the PACA trust provisions, and that Defendants resold said Produce to various food stores and other establishments. As is relevant here, by the time Plaintiffs commenced this action in 2022, Defendants had ceased paying Plaintiffs for the delivered Produce and owed the Plaintiffs in excess of $209,000.00. Eventually, Plaintiffs were able to collect approximately $10,000.00 from a couple of Defendants’ customers. II. Relevant Procedural Background Despite a Preliminary Injunction Order being entered directing Defendants to comply with their PACA obligations to pay Plaintiffs for the Produce (see ECF No. 18), they failed to do so. Defendants were ultimately found to be in contempt of the Preliminary Injunction Order (see ECF No. 26; see also Order of Continued Contempt, ECF No. 31; Amended Order of Continued Contempt, ECF No. 36); however, notwithstanding being afforded the opportunity to purge themselves of contempt, Defendants failed to do so. And, even though Mejia appeared at the September 2022 contempt hearing and a related status conference in October 2022, he never answered Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.1 (See Case Docket, in toto.) Relatedly, Mejia Tropical never made an appearance in this action. (See id.) Thereafter, on December 5, 2022, the Clerk’s Entry of Default was filed. (See ECF No. 44.) Plaintiffs now move for default judgment relying upon: (1) their Amended Complaint; as further supported by (2) the sworn affidavits of (i) Plaintiffs’ counsel, Attorney Brown (ECF No. 46), (ii) Ms. Khaimova for Marchella (ECF No. 47), and (iii) Mr. Balducci for NE Banana (ECF No. 48) (collectively, the “Supporting Affidavits”); and other documentary evidence attached to the Supporting Affidavits. As stated, supra, despite Defendants being served with the Motion, they have not opposed it; their time to do so has long since expired. DISCUSSION I. Applicable Law “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is the basic procedure to be followed when there is a default in the course of litigation.” Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 246 (2d Cir.2004). “Rule 55 provides a ‘two-step process’ for the entry of judgment against a party who fails to defend: first, the entry of a default, and second, the entry of a default judgment.” City of N.Y. v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 128 (2d Cir 2011) (quoting New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir.2005). Entry of default is appropriate where a “party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a). A defendant’s default constitutes “an admission of all well-pleaded allegations” against [it].” A&B Alt. Mktg. v. Int’l Quality Fruit Inc., 35 F.4th 913 (2d Cir. 2022); Mickalis Pawn Shop, 645 F.3d at 128 (“The first step, entry of a default, formalizes a judicial recognition that a defendant has, through its failure to defend the action, admitted liability to the plaintiff.”). Upon the satisfaction of the first step, the second step of Rule 55 must then be satisfied. “The second step, entry of a default judgment [pursuant to Rule 55(b)], converts the defendant’s admission of liability into a final judgment that terminates the litigation and awards the plaintiff any relief to which the court decides it is entitled, to the extent permitted by Rule 54(c).” Mickalis Pawn Shop, 645 F.3d at 128. When determining whether default judgment is warranted, the court reviews a plaintiff’s allegations to decide whether said allegations establish a defendant’s liability as a matter of law. See Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009); see also A&B Alt. Mktg. v. Int’l Quality Fruit Inc., 521 F. Supp. 3d 170, 175-76 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (“It is hornbook law that on a motion for default judgment, the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint pertaining to liability are accepted as true.” (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992))). Further, “[i]t is well-settled that on a motion for a default judgment, a defendant’s default does not constitute an admission as to the damages claimed in the complaint.” A&B Alt. Mktg., 521 F. Supp. 3d at 176 (citation omitted). Rather, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish entitlement to requested damages. See Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999); see also A&B Alt. Mktg., 521 F. Supp. 3d at 176 (same). “To determine damages, the court may conduct an inquest or it may rely on the affidavits and other documentary evidence provided by plaintiff, obviating the need for a hearing on damages.” A&B Alt. Mktg., 521 F. Supp. 3d at 176 (first citing FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2)(B); then citing Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 2 v. Moulton Masonry & Constr., LLC, 779 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2015)). II. Analysis As an initial matter, the Court relies upon the relevant legal standards, analyses, and reasoning articulated in a report and recommendation in another recent PACA case from this District where Plaintiffs’ counsel was counsel for the plaintiff seeking default judgment, to wit, Ryeco, LLC v. Legend Produce, Inc., No. 20-CV-4044, 2021 WL 2742873 (E.D.N.Y. May 24, 2021) (hereafter, the “Ryeco R&R Decision”). Of significance: The Ryeco plaintiff did not lodge any objections to the Ryeco R&R Decision, which was adopted in its entirety by District Judge Block. See Ryeco, 2021 WL 2741605 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2021) (adopting report and recommendation). Said legal standards, analyses and reasonings are incorporated by reference herein. A. Service of Process and Default As a threshold matter, the Court makes the following findings. The record reflects that proper service has been made on Defendants. (See ECF Nos. 10, 14; see also, e.g., ECF Nos. 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 37, 41.) As noted, review of the Case Docket establishes that no answer, motion or other appearance was filed by or on behalf of the Defendants. (See Case Docket, in toto.) Further, the Clerk of Court properly entered notation of Defendants’ default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Entry of Default, ECF No. 44.) B. Liability 1. As to Mejia Tropical To recover monies from a PACA trust, a plaintiff must show five elements: (1) the commodities sold were perishable agricultural commodities; (2) the purchaser of the perishable agricultural commodities was a commission merchant, dealer, or broker; (3) the transaction occurred in interstate or foreign commerce; (4) the seller has not received full payment on the transaction; and (5) the seller preserved its trust rights by giving written notice to the purchaser of its intention to[] do so [(hereafter, the "PACA Recovery Elements")]. Ryeco R&R Decision, at *3. Upon examination of the Amended Complaint, the Motion, and the Supporting Affidavits, together with their respective supporting evidence, and for substantially the same reasons as discussed in the Ryeco R&R Decision when examining each of PACA Recovery Elements, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ uncontroverted allegations establish each of the requisite PACA Recovery Elements warranting judgment in their favor as to their PACA-related causes of action, i.e., the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action. Plaintiffs have also shown they are entitled to default judgment against Mejia Tropical for failure to pay for goods sold, their Fourth Cause of Action. By their Amended Complaint and the Khaimova and Balduccia Affidavits, Plaintiffs have established the purchase and sale of the Produce, as well as Mejia Tropical’s failure to pay for the invoiced and delivered Produce. (See Am. Compl.
8-13; Khaimova Aff.
