Franklin Construction Group, LLC v. Shore et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
FRANKLIN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	)
) 	Case No. 3:24-cv-01255
WILLIAM SHORE, JWSC, LLC, KEITHER 	) 	JURY DEMAND
MEADOWS, JOSEPH HEATH, HYDS INC., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as to William Shore
(“Shore”) and JWSC, LLC ("JWSC") pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(b). Docket
No. 137. Plaintiffs have filed a supporting memorandum of law (Docket No. 138-1, p. 1) along
with a supporting declaration (Docket No. 138-1, p. 5). For the reasons stated herein, the
undersigned recommends that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Docket No. 137) be
GRANTED.
The Complaint in this action was filed on October 21, 2024. Docket No. 1. The Defendants
against whom the Plaintiffs seek a default judgment have not answered or otherwise responded to
the Complaint in this matter. On January 22, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered a default against
Defendants Shore and JWSC. Docket No. 81.
Following a clerk’s entry of default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), a plaintiff may request
default judgment and award damages under Rule 55(b). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(a)-
(b). In a multi-defendant litigation, the preferred practice is to postpone entry of the default
judgment until the claims against all non-defaulted defendants are adjudicated on the merits. See
Case 3:24-cv-01255 Document 145 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (allowing entry of default judgment against fewer than all parties “only if the
Court expressly determines there is no just reason for delay”); Driver v. Fabish, 2017 WL 413719,
at *2 (M.D. Tenn. January 31, 2017, accepted, 2017 WL 998071 (M. D. Tenn. March 15, 2017)
(citing Frow v. De La Vega, 82 US 552, 554 (1872); Northland Ins. Co. v. Cailu Title Corp., 204
F. R. D. 327, 330 (W. D. Mich. 2000)); Thorburn v. Fish, 2014 WL 6871535, at *2 (M. D. Tenn.
December 5, 2014) (quoting Corrosioneering, Inc. v. Thyssen Evntl. Sys., Inc., 807 F 2d 1279,
1282 (6th Cir. 1986)) (noting that entry of default judgment when other claims remain pending is
appropriate "only in the infrequent harsh case as an instrument for the improved administration of
justice"). This "preferred practice" is based on the desire to avoid inconsistent decisions for jointly
and severally liable defendants. See e.g., United States ex rel Hudson v. Peerless Insurance
Company, 374 F. 2d 942, 943-45 (4th Cir. 1967) (finding that preventing inconsistent judgments
for jointly and severally liable Defendants is a "just reason" for delaying the entry of a default
judgment). In addition to inconsistent judgments, the desire to avoid piecemeal appeals further
supports waiting for entry of default judgments against defaulted Defendants. See Lefever v.
Ferguson, 567 Fed. Appx. 426, 432 (6th Cir. 2014).
At the time Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Docket No. 137) was filed, on August
7, 2025, Defendants Keither Meadows, Joseph Heath, and HYDS, Inc. were not in default and
were still energetically defending the action. See Docket No. 136-1. However, on September 29,
2025, Plaintiffs and Defendants Keither Meadows, Joseph Heath, and HYDS, Inc. filed a
Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, specifically stipulating that “all claims, causes of action,
and requests for relief by Franklin Construction Group, LLC against Keith Meadows, Joseph
Heath, and HYDS, Inc. shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a confidential settlement
agreement. All claims, causes of action, and requests for relief by Franklin Construction Group,
Case 3:24-cv-01255 Document 145 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

3
LLC against William Shore and JWSC, LLC are hereby reserved.” Docket No. 143, p. 1. Thus,
we proceed absent any concerns for the formerly non-defaulted Defendants, as the Defendants
against whom the Plaintiff seeks a default judgment are the only remaining Defendants party to
this action.
The Complaint in this action was filed on October 21, 2024. Docket No. 1. Defendants
Shore and JWSC were each served with a Summons and Complaint on November 7, 2024. Docket
Nos. 33, 36. Defendants Shore and JWSC have not answered or otherwise responded to the
Complaint in this matter. On January 22, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered a default against
Defendants Shore and JWSC. Docket No. 81. Having considered the application and the record in
this case, the undersigned recommends that the Motion for Default Judgment be GRANTED.
The undersigned further finds as follows:
1. 	Defendants Shore and JWSC were served process on November 7, 2024, via direct
delivery. Docket Nos. 33, 36.
2. 	Defendants Shore and JWSC failed to respond or otherwise defend the allegations in the
Complaint.
3. 	The Clerk has made an Entry of Default against Defendants Shore and JWSC on Plaintiff’s
motion on January 22, 2025. Docket No. 81.
4. 	Defendants Shore and JWSC are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for all of the
causes of action set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, and Plaintiffs are entitled to a default
judgment against these Defendants.
5. 	The amount of damages are apparent and calculable. The damages are alleged in detail in
the Complaint and attested to by the declaration of Ben Schadle, a member of Franklin
Construction Group, LLC. Docket No. 138-1.
Case 3:24-cv-01255 Document 145 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

4
6. 	Plaintiff Franklin Construction Group, LLC is entitled to a joint and several judgment
against Defendants Shore and JWSC in the amount of $24,892,407.57. The judgment in
favor of Plaintiff Franklin Construction Group, LLC includes its purchases of supplies and
materials, which, due to their alleged artificially inflated price, produced damages to
Franklin Construction Group, LLC in the amount of $6,402,151.49. The judgment in favor
of Franklin Construction Group, LLC also includes damages as a result of alleged fraud
and misappropriation in the amount of $1,895,317.70. The total amount of actual damages
allegedly attributable to Defendants Shore and JWSC is in the amount of $8,297,469.19.
The judgment in favor of Plaintiff Franklin Construction Group, LLC in the amount of
$24,892,407.57 reflects treble damages established by 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964(c).
7. 	The undersigned further recommends that all Writs and other process necessary to enforce
the judgment herein shall issue in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days
from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have fourteen
(14) days from receipt of any objections filed in this Report in which to file any response to said
objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report
and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed. 2d 435 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01255 Document 145 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>