Bostik, Inc. v. J.E. Higgins Lumber Company et al

Filing 35

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 33 Plaintiff Bostik, Inc.'s Application for Default Judgment.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 BOSTIK, INC., 8 Plaintiff, 10 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 11 12 13 v. J.E. HIGGINS LUMBER CO.; GOLDEN STATE FLOORING, INC.; and DOES 150, inclusive, Defendants. 14 ) Case No. 12-4021 SC ) ) ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION ) FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 15 16 Now before the court is Plaintiff Bostik, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") 17 Application for Default Judgment against Defendant J.E. Higgins 18 Lumber Company ("Defendant"). 19 already sought default judgment in this matter, but its previous 20 Application was denied -- even though the Eitel factors favored 21 entering judgment for Plaintiff -- because Plaintiff failed to 22 "prove up" its damages. 23 (citing Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), 24 Orange Co. Elec. Ind. Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Moore Elec. 25 Contracting, Inc., No. 11-CV-00942-LHK, 2012 WL 1623236, at *2 26 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2012) (applications for default judgment must 27 "prove up" the amount requested by providing evidence of damages)). 28 ECF No. 33 ("Appl."). Plaintiff has ECF No. 32 ("Order Denying Appl.") at 3, 8 Plaintiff now provides thorough calculations of damages and 1 clear explanations of its methods. 2 in damages, comprised of $591,151.11 in unpaid contractual fees, 3 $70,938.13 in interest, and $18,703.82 in attorneys' fees and 4 costs. 5 Eitel factors in light of its previous Order, the Court GRANTS 6 Plaintiff's Application for the reasons explained below. Appl. at 2-3. Plaintiff requests $680,793.06 Since the Court need not reconsider the First, Plaintiff requests $591,151.11 in unpaid fees. 7 See 8 Appl. at 2. To prove this amount Plaintiff provides the sworn 9 declaration of Bostik's Credit Manager Denny Thompson, who provides United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 the total amounts of the purchase orders and invoices exchanged 11 between Plaintiff and Defendant. 12 3. 13 Compare id. with Order Denying Appl. at 8 (noting that in 14 Plaintiff's first application for default judgment, the total 15 amounts Plaintiff requested did not match the total from the actual 16 purchase orders and invoices). 17 the requested amount of unpaid contractual fees. 18 ECF No. 33-2 ("Thompson Decl.") ¶ The total that Plaintiff provides matches its damage demand. Plaintiff has sufficiently proved Second, Plaintiff requests $70,938.13 in interest on the 19 principal amount of $591,151.11 in unpaid fees. Appl. at 2-3; 20 Thompson Decl. ¶ 8. 21 section 138.05(a), which provides for a maximum interest rate of 22 twelve percent for one year, computed on the declining principal 23 balance of the unpaid amount. 24 Auths. ¶ 1 Ex. 1; Thompson Decl. Ex. B. 25 Conditions of Sale, to which Defendant agreed, state that 26 Defendant's interest on unpaid fees is governed by that statute. 27 Thompson Decl. Ex. B ("Terms"). 28 $591,151.11 is $70,938.13, as Plaintiff correctly calculated. This calculation is based on Wisconsin Statute See Appl. App'x of Non-Federal Plaintiff's Terms and Twelve percent of a principal of 2 1 Compare id. with Order Denying Appl. at 8 (noting that Plaintiff 2 did not provide an explanation of its application of the Wisconsin 3 statute in its first application for default judgment). 4 Wisconsin Statute, the Terms, and the unpaid principal, the amount 5 of interest Plaintiff requests is correct and acceptable. 6 Per the Third, Plaintiff requests $18,733.82 in attorneys' fees and 7 costs. Appl. at 3. Plaintiff has provided a thorough table of its 8 attorneys' billing rates and invoices. 9 Plaintiff also clearly explained its attorneys' costs. Thompson Decl. ¶ 9. Id. These United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 amounts are appropriate and reasonable, and Plaintiff's proof is 11 sufficient. 12 that in its first application for default judgment, Plaintiff did 13 not explain how it arrived at its total of fees and costs). 14 Compare id. with Order Denying Appl. at 8-9 (noting The Court accordingly enters default judgment against 15 Defendant J.E. Higgins Lumber Company in favor of Plaintiff Bostik, 16 Inc., in the amount of $680,793.06, comprised of $591,151.11 in 17 unpaid contractual fees, $70,938.13 in interest, and $18,703.82 in 18 attorneys' fees and costs. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 4 Dated: MARCH ___, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?