HRB, LLC v. Mark Kornhauser , 440 F. App'x 781 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                         [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________           FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-15581         ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    SEPTEMBER 8, 2011
    Non-Argument Calendar
    JOHN LEY
    ________________________
    CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-00157-LGW-JEG
    HRB, LLC,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES ALEXANDER, et al.,
    Defendants,
    MARK KORNHAUSER,
    FREDERICK L. DAKE,
    Defendants - Appellants.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Georgia
    _________________________
    (September 8, 2011)
    Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Mark Kornhauser appeals the district court’s denial of his first
    motion for reconsideration in connection with a breach of contract action filed by
    HRB, LLC (HRB). Appellant Frederick L. Dake joins Kornhauser in appealing
    the denial of a second motion for reconsideration. Appellants contend the district
    court abused its discretion in denying the motions for reconsideration because it
    (1) lacked personal jurisdiction to enter a default judgment in favor of HRB as
    Appellants were not properly served with notice of HRB’s Complaint,1 and (2) the
    default judgment is void as a matter of law because HRB is attempting to collect a
    “usurious amount” of interest in connection with the personal guaranty executed
    by the parties. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record, we conclude the
    district court did not abuse its discretion2 and affirm for the reasons set forth in the
    district court’s well-reasoned orders of April 16, 2010 and November 10, 2010.
    AFFIRMED.
    1
    We note that Appellants rely on dicta in National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 
    375 U.S. 311
    , 318 (1964) for the proposition that an agent’s failure to communicate actual notice of
    suit to the defendant terminates the agency relationship and impinges upon a defendant’s due
    process rights. The Court expressly stated it was not deciding Szukhent based on a scenario
    where the defendant had no personal notice of a lawsuit. 
    Id. at 315
    .
    2
    “We review a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of
    discretion.” Corwin v. Walt Disney Co., 
    475 F.3d 1239
    , 1254 (11th Cir. 2007).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-15581

Citation Numbers: 440 F. App'x 781

Filed Date: 9/8/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023