Reported / Citable
Background
Kashmir Blue Energy, LLC sued TR Offshore, LLC for breach of contract and under Texas’s open-account law. KBE alleged that, under a Master Service Agreement, it supplied offshore services, equipment, personnel, rentals, consumables, and third-party charges for TR Offshore’s operations, including work in the Mustang Block 904 area and related wells.
KBE alleged that TR Offshore requested and accepted the work, received invoices that it did not dispute, and failed to pay. KBE served TR Offshore and its registered agent, but TR Offshore did not appear or respond. The clerk entered default, and KBE moved for final default judgment after supplementing its proof of damages.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton recommended that the district court grant KBE’s motion and enter default judgment under Rule 55(b). The recommendation concluded that diversity jurisdiction existed, that default judgment was procedurally warranted, and that the complaint’s admitted allegations established both a maritime-contract breach and a Texas open-account claim.
The magistrate judge recommended a single, nonduplicative damages award of $185,031.33 for five unpaid invoices. The recommendation also would award $8,549.66 in attorneys’ fees and expenses, prejudgment interest at the Texas judicial interest rate from March 26, 2025 through judgment, and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s default admits well-pleaded liability allegations, but the plaintiff must still prove damages.
- Contract and open-account claims based on the same unpaid invoices cannot support double recovery.
- In a maritime contract case, prejudgment interest is generally awarded absent unusual inequitable circumstances.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the evidence needed to convert a default into a monetary judgment: pleaded facts establishing the agreement and breach, plus invoices and supporting business records establishing the amount owed.
It also distinguishes the procedural posture from a final district-court ruling. The filing is a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation, subject to objections and adoption by the district court.