WMCV Phase 3, LLC v. Couture International, Inc. et al
Filing
315
ORDER that 292 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FURTHER ORDERED that 291 Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered in the amount of $906,331.32 in favor of Plaintiff WMCV Phase 3, LLC and against Defendants Richard Birdwell, Shushok & McCoy, Inc., and Matt Turner, jointly and severally. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/2/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
WMCV PHASE 3, LLC,
4
Plaintiff,
5
6
vs.
SHUSHOK & MCCOY, INC.; et al.,
7
Defendants.
8
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:10-cv-0661-GMN-NJK
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 292), filed by
10
Plaintiff WMCV Phase 3, LLC (“WMCV”). Pro se Defendant Richard Birdwell filed a
11
Response in opposition, (ECF No. 299)1, to which WMCV replied, (ECF No. 304).
Also before the Court is WMCV’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants
12
13
Shushok & McCoy, Inc. (“Shushok”) and Matt Turner. (ECF No. 291). To date, no response to
14
this Motion has been filed. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant the Motion for
15
Summary Judgment in part, and will grant the Motion for Default Judgment in full.
16
I.
17
BACKGROUND
This case has a long procedural history in this Court, but for the purposes of this Order
18
the Court will address only the details and allegations relevant to the instant Motions. This case
19
arises out of the failure of two commercial tenants to pay rent and the subsequent wrongful acts
20
committed by a collection agency and its employees. The aforementioned commercial tenants
21
were Global Accents, Inc. (“Global Accents”), and Couture International, Inc. (“Couture”).
22
The collection agency is Defendant Shushok, who employed Defendants Richard Birdwell and
23
24
25
In light of Defendant Birdwell’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed his filings,
holding them to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
1
Page 1 of 13
1
Matt Turner at all times relevant to this case.
2
WMCV owns a parcel of real property that is commonly known as the World Market
3
Center Las Vegas. (E.g., Order 3:17-20, ECF No. 209). Global Accents and Couture are
4
former tenants of the World Market Center that were evicted for non-payment of rent in
5
December 2008. (Id. at 4:1-7). At the time of their evictions, Global Accents owed
6
$360,831.00 and Couture owed $695,500.32 pursuant to their respective lease agreements.
7
(Id.).
8
WMCV hired Defendant Shushok in 2007 as a commercial collection agent to recover
9
debts from tenants in default. (Id. at 4:8-9). However, this relationship ended in June 2009
10
when WMCV instructed Shushok to cease collection activities against its tenants, including
11
Global Accents and Couture. (Id. at 4:11-12). At no point during their relationship did WMCV
12
authorize Shushok to enter into agreements with tenants on WMCV’s behalf. (Id. at 4:10-11).
13
In July 2009, Defendant Birdwell allegedly represented himself as “counsel” for “World
14
Market Center Las Vegas” and negotiated an agreement with Couture that purported to release
15
Couture from its liability to WMCV in exchange for $20,000, which was paid directly to
16
Shushok. (Id. at 4:13-19).
17
Similarly, in August 2009, Defendant Turner allegedly represented himself as the
18
“director” of “World Market Center Las Vegas.” (Id. at 4:20-21). Following negotiations that
19
were conducted by Defendant Birdwell, Defendant Turner entered into an agreement with
20
Global Accents that purported to release Global Accents from its liability to WMCV in
21
exchange for $8,200, which was paid directly to Defendant Shushok. (Id. at 4:21-24); (Birdwell
22
Deposition 78:6-25, Ex. 7 to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 292-1).
23
WMCV received no part of the proceeds that were paid in exchange for the release of
24
Global Accents’ and Couture’s obligations under their respective lease agreements. (Id. at 5:2-
25
3).
Page 2 of 13
1
This case originally involved claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
2
good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment asserted by WMCV against Global Accents
3
and Couture. Through these claims, WMCV sought to recover the full amounts due under the
4
lease agreements. Prior to trial, WMCV settled its claims against Couture. The terms of this
5
settlement provided that Couture would pay WMCV $150,000 in exchange for the dismissal of
6
WMCV’s claims. (Settlement Agmt. at pp. 2-3, ECF No. 292-2). As for WMCV’s claims
7
against Global Accents, following a two-day bench trial that took place on June 11 and 12,
8
2013, the Court found that Defendant Shushok and its employees had apparent authority to
9
execute the agreements and release Global Accents from its debt to WMCV. As a result of this
10
finding, the Court entered a judgment in favor of Global Accents as to all of WMCV’s claims.
11
(ECF No. 210).
12
Based on the allegation that Defendants Birdwell and Turner executed agreements with
13
Global Accents and Couture despite knowing that they lacked the requisite authority, WMCV
14
has asserted claims for (1) civil conspiracy; (2) conversion; and (3) intentional interference with
15
contractual relations. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, WMCV argues that Defendant
16
Birdwell has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to each of the claims against him.
17
In its Motion for Default Judgment, WMCV requests that judgment be entered against
18
Defendants Shushok and Turner. However, the Court has already ordered that default
19
judgment be entered against Defendant Shushok, (Order, ECF No. 82), and therefore the Court
20
will consider this Motion only as it relates to Defendant Turner. The Court will first address
21
the Motion for Summary Judgment, and will then discuss the Motion for Default Judgment.
22
II.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 292)
23
A.
24
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the
25
Legal Standard
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
Page 3 of 13
1
affidavits, if any, show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
2
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that
3
may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
4
(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable
5
jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. “Summary judgment is inappropriate if
6
reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict
7
in the nonmoving party’s favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th
8
Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999)). A
9
principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported
10
claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
11
In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “When
12
the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come
13
forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went
14
uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing
15
the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp.
16
Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
17
In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense,
18
the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an
19
essential element of the nonmoving party’s case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving
20
party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party’s case
21
on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-
22
24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and
23
the court need not consider the nonmoving party’s evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
24
398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).
25
If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing
Page 4 of 13
1
party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
2
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute,
3
the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is
4
sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the
5
parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors
6
Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid
7
summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual
8
data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go
9
beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing
10
competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.
11
At summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the
12
truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
13
The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn
14
in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is
15
not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 249-50.
16
B.
17
WMCV argues that summary judgment is warranted because Defendant Birdwell has
Discussion
18
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to WMCV’s claims for (1) conspiracy, (2)
19
conversion, and (3) intentional interference with contractual relations. The Court will address
20
each of these claims in turn.
21
22
1.
Conspiracy
Pursuant to Nevada law, a claim for civil conspiracy “consists of a combination of two
23
or more persons who, by some concerted action, intend to accomplish an unlawful objective for
24
the purpose of harming another, and damage results from the act or acts.” Consolidated
25
Generator-Nevada, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (Nev. 1998) (quoting
Page 5 of 13
1
2
Hilton Hotels v. Butch Lewis Productions, 862 P.2d 1207, 1210 (Nev. 1993)).
Though Defendant Birdwell does not dispute that WMCV has provided evidence to
3
support the elements of a claim for conspiracy, the Court nonetheless declines to grant
4
summary judgment as to this claim. It is well established that under Nevada law, a civil
5
conspiracy claim does not arise when an employee commits a tort on behalf of his employer.
6
See, e.g., Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d 610, 622 (Nev. 1983). In order to
7
demonstrate that an employer and employee carried out an actionable conspiracy, a plaintiff
8
must show that the employee acted for the purpose of gaining an “individual benefit.” See, e.g.,
9
id. While the evidence on the record demonstrates that Defendant Birdwell was generally paid
10
a commission on accounts he successfully collected, see (Birdwell Deposition 74:7-11, Ex. 7 to
11
Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 292-1), many statements made by Defendant Birdwell during his
12
deposition indicate that he performed the acts in question purely on behalf of Defendant
13
Shushok, (id. at 78:7-9) (“I knew what we were doing was wrong, we shouldn’t do it, you
14
know, but it wasn’t my company.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that WMCV has failed to
15
satisfy its burden to show that no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether
16
Defendant Birdwell attempted to gain an individual benefit through his acts, and thus the
17
Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied as to this claim.
18
19
2.
Conversion
Under Nevada law, “Conversion is a distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over
20
another’s personal property in denial of, or inconsistent with his title or rights therein or in
21
derogation, exclusion, or defiance of such title or rights.” Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
22
5 P.3d 1043, 1048 (Nev. 2000). Personal property includes “money, goods, chattels, things in
23
action and evidences of debt.” Gallegos v. Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc., 255 P.3d 1287,
24
1289 (Nev. 2011) (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 10.045). “A ‘thing in action,’ . . . is defined as a
25
‘right to bring an action to recover a debt, money, or thing.’” Id. (quoting Black’s Law
Page 6 of 13
1
2
Dictionary 1617, 275 (9th ed. 2009)).
In this case, Defendant Birdwell has admitted that he knew Defendant Shushok had no
3
authority to collect on WMCV’s accounts because Shushok’s relationship with WMCV had
4
been terminated. (Birdwell Deposition 70:14-17). Additionally, Defendant Birdwell has stated
5
that despite knowing his actions were wrong, he still negotiated debt settlements while falsely
6
claiming he was acting on WMCV’s behalf. (Id. at 78:6-25). Moreover, Defendant Birdwell
7
has admitted that he arranged for the payments from these settlements to be sent to Defendant
8
Shushok rather than WMCV. (Id. at 72:4-11). As this evidence is undisputed by Defendant
9
Birdwell, the Court finds that WMCV has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that Defendant
10
Birdwell wrongfully exerted an act of dominion over WMCV’s debt-collection rights vis-à-vis
11
Global Accents and Couture, in defiance of WMCV’s lawful interests over those rights.
12
Nevertheless, Defendant Birdwell argues that summary judgment is not warranted as to
13
the conversion claim because the Court has already ruled that Defendant Shushok had apparent
14
authority to release Global Accents from its debt to WMCV. (Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J. 6:11-
15
7:9). This argument is misplaced, however, as the facts of this case clearly demonstrate that
16
Defendant Birdwell knew he lacked the authority to perform the acts in question.
17
The doctrine of apparent authority prevents a principal from denying that a party acted
18
as its agent when the principal, by its conduct, ostensibly clothed the agent with the authority to
19
act. Ellis v. Nelson, 233 P.2d 1072, 1076 (Nev. 1951). This doctrine is often invoked by third
20
parties seeking to enforce agreements against a principal that were made with an agent that the
21
party believed to possess the requisite authority from the principal. Id. at 1076-77. Based on
22
this doctrine, the Court previously found that Global Accents had been released from its debt to
23
WMCV due to Global Accents’ reasonable conclusion that Shushok had the authority to collect
24
debt and execute termination agreements on behalf of WMCV. (Order 10:9-17, ECF No. 209).
25
The Court’s prior findings in this case do not support Defendant Birdwell’s attempt to
Page 7 of 13
1
invoke the apparent authority doctrine to shield himself from liability for the wrongful acts he
2
performed while knowing he lacked authorization from WMCV. Though it is unclear whether
3
the doctrine of apparent authority can properly be asserted by an agent against his own
4
principal, the question need not be addressed here. Indeed, it is well established that a party
5
invoking the doctrine of apparent authority must prove, inter alia, “that he subjectively
6
believed the agent had authority to act for the principal.” Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Builders,
7
Inc., 934 P.2d 257, 261 (Nev. 1997). In this case, it is undisputed that Defendant Birdwell
8
knew that he lacked the authority to act on behalf of WMCV. (Birdwell Deposition 70:14-17).
9
Accordingly, the Court finds that WMCV’s conversion claim against Defendant Birdwell is not
10
11
barred by the doctrine of apparent authority.
Therefore, as WMCV has satisfied its evidentiary burden, and Defendant Birdwell has
12
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact, the Court will grant the Motion for Summary
13
Judgment as to WMCV’s conversion claim.
14
3.
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
15
“To establish intentional interference with contractual relations, [a] plaintiff must show:
16
(1) a valid and existing contract; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional
17
acts intended or designed to disrupt the contractual relationship; (4) actual disruption of the
18
contract; and (5) resulting damage.” Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Butch Lewis Prods., Inc., 862 P.2d
19
1207, 1210 (Nev. 1993) (quoting Sutherland v. Gross, 772 P.2d 1287, 1290 (Nev. 1989)).
20
It is undisputed that WMCV had lease agreements with Global Accents and Couture.
21
(Exs. 9, 10 to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 292). Defendant Birdwell has admitted that he
22
knew Shushok’s debt-collection efforts were based on lease agreements that WMCV had with
23
its clients. See, e.g., (Birdwell Deposition 22:20-23, 32:23-33:1). Furthermore, Defendant
24
Birdwell testified, in detail, that he pursued the collections at issue despite knowing it was
25
wrong, and that he specifically directed the debtors to send payments to Shushok rather than
Page 8 of 13
1
WMCV. (Id. at 72:4-11, 78:7-20). As a result of Defendant Birdwell’s actions, WMCV has
2
been left without a legal remedy to collect the amounts it was owed under the lease agreements.
3
See (Order on Stip., ECF No 186); (Judgment Order 10:9-17, ECF No. 209). Therefore,
4
WMCV has satisfied its evidentiary burden as to each element of its intentional interference
5
with contractual relations claim.
6
Defendant Birdwell argues that this claim fails because the lease agreements at issue
7
were initially disrupted when Global Accents and Couture first refused to pay WMCV the full
8
amounts owed. (Birdwell Resp. 6:16-19). Because Global Accents and Couture were already
9
in default, Defendant Birdwell asserts that his subsequent actions could not have interfered with
10
the lease agreements. (Id.). However, this argument fallaciously assumes that Global Accents’
11
and Couture’s defaults somehow relieved them of their obligations to WMCV. In fact, even
12
after defaulting, Global Accents and Couture were still obligated to pay WMCV as provided in
13
the lease agreements, and WMCV was entitled to the full amounts owed. It is undisputed that
14
WMCV lost its ability to recover from Global Accents and Couture as a result of Defendant
15
Birdwell’s actions in this case. Therefore, the fact that Global Accents and Couture had
16
defaulted on their contractual obligations prior to Defendant Birdwell’s actions is immaterial to
17
WMCV’s claim for intentional interference with contractual relations.
18
As Defendant Birdwell fails to raise a genuine dispute of material fact, the Court will
19
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment as to WMCV’s claim for intentional interference with
20
contractual relations.
21
22
4.
Damages
In support of its calculation of damages, WMCV has submitted a declaration by its
23
corporate controller, Barrett Seitz, stating that it was owed $360,831.00 pursuant to Global
24
Accents’ lease and $695,500.32 pursuant to Couture’s lease following the defaults. (Seitz Decl.
25
2:4-6, Ex. 1 to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 292-1). Additionally, Mr. Seitz declared that
Page 9 of 13
1
WMCV was unable to mitigate these damages by leasing the spaces designated for Global
2
Accents and Couture after the defaults. (Id. at 2:6-7). WMCV concedes that it entered a
3
settlement with Couture in this matter under which it will receive payment of $150,000, which
4
must be subtracted from its total damages. (Settlement Agmt. at 1, Ex. 8 to Mot. for Summ. J.,
5
ECF No. 292-1). In his Response, Defendant Birdwell does not dispute the calculation of
6
damages put forward by WMCV. Accordingly, the Court finds that WMCV was damaged in
7
the amount of $906,331.32.
8
Therefore, for the reasons stated supra, the Court will deny WMCV’s Motion for
9
Summary Judgment as it relates to the civil conspiracy claim but grant the Motion as it relates
10
to the conversion and intentional interference with contractual relations claims. Additionally,
11
the Court finds that an award of $906,331.32 in favor of WMCV is warranted.
12
III.
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 291)
13
A.
14
The process for entering a default judgment is provided by Rule 55 of the Federal Rules
Legal Standard
15
of Civil Procedure, which permits a court to “conduct hearings or make referrals . . . when, to
16
enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine the amount
17
of damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other
18
matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
19
As a general rule, “default judgments are ordinarily disfavored,” and “[c]ases should be
20
decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,
21
1472 (9th Cir. 1986). “Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as
22
to the entry of a default judgment include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the
23
merits of plaintiff’s claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in
24
the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was
25
due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil
Page 10 of 13
1
Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.” Id. at 1471-72.
“The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint,
2
3
except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v.
4
Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).
5
“However, a defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit
6
conclusions of law.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal
7
quotation marks omitted).
8
B.
9
In assessing WMCV’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Turner, the
10
Discussion
Court will consider each of the Eitel factors in turn.
11
1.
12
Possibility of Prejudice
The first factor weighs in favor of granting the Motion. Default was entered against
13
Defendant Turner on November 7, 2012, (ECF No. 148), and Defendant Turner has since made
14
no attempt to file an answer or otherwise appear in this case. WMCV will certainly suffer
15
prejudice if the Motion is not granted, as it likely has no other recourse for recovery for its
16
claims against Defendant Turner. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d
17
1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Therefore, the possibility of prejudice to WMCV weighs in favor
18
of default judgment.
19
2.
20
Sufficiency of the Complaint and Merits of Plaintiff’s Claims
As explained supra, WMCV has provided an abundance of evidence to support its
21
claims for relief, and is entitled to summary judgment as to its claims against Defendant
22
Birdwell. WMCV’s evidence shows that Defendants Shushok, Birdwell, and Turner converted
23
WMCV’s property and interfered with its contractual relations. Accordingly, the Court finds
24
that the merits of WMCV’s claims weigh in favor of default judgment.
25
///
Page 11 of 13
1
2
3.
The Sum of Money at Stake
In regard to this factor, the Court considers “the amount of money at stake in relation to
3
the seriousness of [the defendant’s] conduct.” Vogel v. Rite Aid Corp., 992 F. Supp. 2d 998,
4
1012 (C.D. Cal. 2014). WMCV seeks to hold Defendant Turner jointly and severally liable for
5
the $906,331.32 it was rendered unable to collect from Global Accents and Couture due to
6
Turner’s alleged wrongful acts. While this is a large sum, the evidence on the record indicates
7
that Defendant Turner was or should have been aware of the full amounts due under the lease
8
agreements, and therefore he likely performed his acts with full knowledge of the financial
9
harm that would be imposed upon WMCV. See, e.g., (Birdwell Deposition 22:20-23:19, 32:23-
10
33:1) (testifying that WMCV communicated the full amounts due under defaulting tenants’
11
leases to support Shushok’s debt-collection efforts). Accordingly, the Court finds that the
12
amount of money at stake, in light of Defendant Turner’s conduct, weighs in favor of default
13
judgment.
14
15
4.
The Possibility of Dispute Concerning Material Facts
Despite the fact that over twenty-seven months have passed, Defendant Turner has made
16
no attempt to appear in this matter or dispute WMCV’s allegations since default was entered
17
against him. Moreover, even after reviewing the evidence on the record, the Court can identify
18
no genuine dispute of material fact as to WMCV’s claims for conversion and intentional
19
interference with contractual relations against Defendant Turner. Therefore, no material factual
20
disputes exist in this case, and this factor weighs in favor of default judgment. Vogel, 992 F.
21
Supp. 2d at 1013.
22
23
5.
Possibility of Excusable Neglect
The Court finds that there is no indication that Defendant Turner’s failure to appear in
24
this matter is a result of excusable neglect. Defendant Turner previously filed an Answer to
25
WMCV’s Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 40), which was later stricken due to his repeated
Page 12 of 13
1
failures to appear, (ECF No. 146). Therefore, it is apparent from the record that Defendant
2
Turner has been made aware that this action is pending against him, yet Defendant Turner has
3
not made any filings or appearances in this case since January 14, 2011. As Defendant Turner
4
has not made any attempt to participate in this action for over four years, the Court finds that
5
this factor weighs in favor of default judgment.
6
6.
Policy Favoring Decisions on the Merits
“Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782
7
8
F.2d at 1472. “Although default judgment is disfavored, a decision on the merits is impractical,
9
if not impossible, when [a] defendant takes no part in the action.” Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Allstate
10
Beauty Products, Inc., 847 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1203 (C.D. Cal. 2012). Therefore, this factor
11
weighs minimally against default judgment.
12
As six of the Eitel factors weigh in favor of default judgment, the Court will grant
13
WMCV’s Motion and order that default judgment be entered against Defendant Turner, who
14
will be held jointly and severally liable with Defendants Shushok and Birdwell in the amount of
15
$906,331.32.
16
IV.
17
18
19
20
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 292),
is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, pursuant to the foregoing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 291), is
GRANTED.
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered in the amount of $906,331.32
22
in favor of Plaintiff WMCV Phase 3, LLC and against Defendants Richard Birdwell, Shushok
23
& McCoy, Inc., and Matt Turner, jointly and severally.
24
25
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2015.
________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 13 of 13
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?