E.B. Stone & Son, Inc. v. Yeaman Machine Technologies, Inc.
Filing
14
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/8/2015 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 12 motion for default judgment against defendant be granted in the amount of $85,677.03. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
E.B. STONE & SON, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:15-cv-1828 GEB CKD
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YEAMAN MACHINE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Defendant.
16
17
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. This matter was
18
19
submitted without oral argument. The undersigned has fully considered the briefs and record in
20
this case and, for the reasons stated below, will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for default
21
judgment be granted.
In this action, plaintiff seeks damages for breach of contract, fraud and intentional
22
23
misrepresentation, money due on an open book account, money had and received, and quantum
24
meruit – unjust enrichment. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of a contract for the sale, shipment and
25
delivery of product packaging equipment and related products to plaintiff’s manufacturing facility
26
located in Solano County, California. The record reflects that defendant was properly served with
27
process on September 9, 2015 and default was entered on November 3, 2015. Plaintiff thereafter
28
/////
1
1
filed an application for default judgment. Plaintiff seeks an entry of default judgment in the
2
amount of $85,677.03.
3
Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint by
4
the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977). The court
5
finds the well pleaded allegations of the complaint state a claim for which relief can be granted.
6
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). The application for default judgment
7
and the exhibits and affidavits attached thereto also support the finding that plaintiff is entitled to
8
the relief in the form of monetary damages requested in the prayer for default judgment, which
9
does not differ in kind from the relief requested in the complaint. Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d
10
315, 317 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832 (1974). The amount sought is supported by the
11
affidavits submitted in support of the motion for default judgment. Plaintiff also requests
12
prejudgment interest, calculated under California law. Such calculation is proper in that plaintiff
13
has alleged state law claims upon which judgment may be entered. See Oak Harbor Freight
14
Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 513 F.3d 949, 961 (9th Cir. 2007). Prejudgment interest
15
should therefore be awarded. There are no policy considerations which preclude the entry of
16
default judgment of the type requested. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir.
17
1986) (factors that may be considered by the court are possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff,
18
merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, sufficiency of the complaint, sum of money at stake in the
19
action; possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; whether the default was due to
20
excusable neglect, and strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring
21
decisions on the merits).
22
23
24
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment (ECF No. 12) against defendant be granted in the amount of $85,677.03.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
25
assigned to this action, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
26
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
27
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
28
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
2
1
shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties
2
are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal
3
the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
Dated: December 8, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
4 ebstone1828.def
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?