MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CHARLES R. SIMPSON, III, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a motion for default judgment filed by Plaintiff Audio Visual Services Group, Inc. ("AVS"), against Defendant Action Motivation, Inc. ("AMI"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion for default judgment.
For the purposes of this opinion, the following facts are taken as true. Defendant IT Service Management Forum-USA, Inc. ("ITS"), is a national organization that provides career development, mentoring, and networking opportunities for information technology professionals. In the years 2006-10, Defendant ITS authorized Defendant AMI to develop, organize, and manage its annual conferences, and further agreed to be contractually bound by any agreements entered into by AMI. In preparing for the 2010 Annual Conference, AMI contacted Plaintiff AVS and requested that AVS provide audiovisual services and equipment during the conference. Prior to the 2010 Conference, AVS provided AMI with a proposal for services and equipment which detailed the services and equipment to be provided as well as their anticipated cost. At no time did either AMI or ITS object to the amount of the proposal.
Pursuant to the proposal, AVS provided all audiovisual services and equipment detailed in the proposal. At the end of the conference, AVS provided AMI with an invoice requesting payment for the services and equipment it had provided. However, AVS has yet to receive any payments for such services and equipment.
On August 8, 2012, AVS filed the present action against ITS requesting damages based on a theory of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. (DN 1). On February 14, 2013, AVS filed its First Amended Complaint, asserting the same claims against AMI. (DN 11). After AMI failed to timely respond to AVS's First Amended Complaint, the Deputy Clerk entered default against AMI (DN 15) in accordance with AVS's request (DN 14). On November 26, 2013, AVS filed the present motion for default judgment (DN 17), to which AMI has failed to respond. Having considered AVS's brief and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Court will now consider the motion for default judgment.
Entry of default judgment constitutes admission of all well-pleaded allegations, except those pertaining to the amount of damages. See Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). Thus, the court must conduct an independent inquiry sufficient to establish damages to a "reasonable certainty." Id. (quoting Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997)). The plaintiffs bear the burden of proving its entitlement to the amount demanded. Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L. U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974)).
The sole issue is whether the facts stated above entitle AVS to recover the damages it has requested from AMI based on a theory of either quantum meruit or unjust enrichment.
In order to prevail on a quantum meruit claim under Kentucky law,  a plaintiff must establish four elements:
1. that valuable services were rendered...;
2. to the person from whom recovery is sought;
3. which services were accepted by that person, or at least were received by that person or were rendered with the knowledge ...