ERTEC Environmental Systems v. RiverValley EcoServices Inc

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Adopting 18 Report and Recommendation and Granting 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ERTEC ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-1907 EMC

RIVERVALLEY ECOSERVICES, INC.,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
(Docket Nos. 10, 18)

13
14
15

Plaintiff ERTEC Environmental Systems (“ERTEC”) filed the instant action alleging breach

16

of contract and related claims against Defendant River Valley EcoServices, Inc. Specifically,

17

ERTEC alleges that Defendant failed to pay the amounts owed for erosion and sediment control

18

products ERTEC sold to Defendant. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 10, 11, 13). Defendant was personally

19

served with the complaint on May 6, 2013. (Dkt. No. 6). Accordingly, Defendant’s answer or

20

responsive pleading was due on May 28, 2013. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendants did not

21

appear or otherwise respond to the complaint, and on May 31, 2013, the clerk entered default against

22

Defendant. (Dkt. No. 8).

23

Plaintiff moved for default judgment, and on September 20, 2013, Magistrate Judge Kandis

24

A. Westmore issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s

25

motion be granted. (Dkt. No. 18). The time for filing objections has passed, and neither party has

26

objected to the Report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

27
28

As an initial matter, the Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over
the action. See J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Basto, No. C 10-5122 PJH, 2011 WL 2197756, at *2

1

(N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011). On October 1, 2013, the Court issued an order to show cause why this

2

case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the complaint did not contain

3

sufficient allegations for the Court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction existed. (Dkt. No.

4

21). Specifically, the Court noted that the complaint failed to properly allege the citizenship of

5

Plaintiff – a limited liability company – and thus it was not clear if there was complete diversity (Id.

6

at 2). On October 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a declaration from Vince Morris, its President and Chief

7

Executive Officer. (Dkt. No. 22). This declaration avers that each member of the LLC is a citizen

8

of either California or Pennsylvania. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d

9

894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We . . . hold that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of
which its owners/members are citizens.”). Thus, as Defendant is a corporation alleged to have its

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

principal place of business in Texas, complete diversity is satisfied and jurisdiction is proper. See

12

Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 557 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 2009).

13

Having review the Report, as well as the record in this case, the Court finds that the Report is

14

well-founded in fact and in law and therefore adopts it in full. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

15

Judgment is therefore GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the

16

amount of $68,191.19, plus interest in the amount of 1.5% per month going forward.

17

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 10 and 18.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: October 17, 2013

22
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2