Richardson v. Salvation Army

                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                               No. 98-10151
                             Summary Calendar



                             CARL RICHARDSON,

                                                Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                    VERSUS

               SALVATION ARMY, SOUTHERN TERRITORY, USA,

                                                Defendant-Appellant.

                         - - - - - - - - - -
            Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Northern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 3:97-CV-1594-G
                         - - - - - - - - - -
                           October 2, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

      The Salvation Army appeals the default judgment in favor of

Carl Richardson and the denial of its Motion to Set Aside Default

Judgment and Motion for Reconsideration.           The district court

denied the motion to set aside, stating that the Salvation Army

failed to show excusable neglect or a meritorious defense.               The

Motion for Reconsideration was denied without reasons.

      A motion to set aside a default judgment filed within ten

days of the entry of the default judgment, such as this one was,

is construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.



      *
        Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
                             No. 98-10151
                                  -2-

R. Civ. P. 59(e).     United States v. One 1988 Dodge Pickup, 959

F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1992).    Appellate review of the denial of a

motion to set aside a default judgment is for abuse of

discretion.   CJC Holdings v. Wright & Lato, 979 F.2d 60, 63 (5th

Cir. 1992).   When a default judgment precludes consideration of

the merits of the case, “‘even a slight abuse [of discretion] may

justify reversal.’”    Williams v. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc.,

728 F.2d 730, 734 (5th Cir. 1984)(citation omitted).      The party

seeking to set aside the default judgment has the burden of

showing good cause.    CJC Holdings, 979 F.2d at 63-64.

     After a review of the record, the briefs, and the applicable

law, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in finding that the Salvation Army did not carry its burden of

showing good cause for the motion to set aside.    We also hold

that the Salvation Army has abandoned any challenges to the

district court’s denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and

refusal to consider any additional evidence submitted with it

because of a failure to brief the topic.    See Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-225 (5th Cir. 1993)(arguments must be briefed

to be preserved for appeal).

     We do hold, however, that it was an abuse of discretion for

the district court to enter default judgment without a hearing on

the amount to be awarded.    The clerk may enter a default judgment

if the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum which can

by computation be made certain.    Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1).

Otherwise, the district court is required to enter the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).    Judgment by default cannot be entered
                             No. 98-10151
                                  -3-

without a hearing unless the amount is liquidated or easily

computable.   See United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854,

857 (5th Cir. 1979).

     Although Richardson submitted the amount of damages and

attorney’s fees he feels he should be awarded through his

attorney’s affidavit, there is no support in the record and no

method of determining the accuracy of those totals.    Mere

statements of award values without any indication of how those

amounts were reached cannot rise to the level of an amount

liquidated or capable of mathematical calculation.    The court may

rely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence, supplemented

by the judge’s personal knowledge, to evaluate the proposed sum.

James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993).     Absent any

information of this type, the district court is required to hold

a hearing to determine the appropriate awards for damages and

attorney’s fees, and a failure to do so is an abuse of discretion

to be corrected on remand.



     AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.