Overseas Private Investment Corporation v. Casamar Holdings, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER Granting 13 Motion for Default Judgment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $981,953.96, together with post judgment interest that will continue to accrue in the a mount of $209.55 per day, as agreed upon pursuant to the contract between the parties; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded attorneys fees and costs pursuant to the contract between the parties in the amount of $2,851.30. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/30/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT
CORPORATION,

5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,
vs.
CASAMAR HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant.

9
10

)
) Case No.: 2:11-cv-00208-GMN-PAL
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

Before the Court is Plaintiff Overseas Private Investment Corporation’s (“OPIC”)

11

Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Casamar Holdings, Inc. (Doc. No.

12

13). Defendant Casamar Holdings, Inc. (“Casamar”) was served by Plaintiff with the

13

Summons and Complaint on February 28, 2011, and Defendant Casamar has not filed an

14

answer or made an appearance in this case. The Clerk’s Entry of Default was entered on

15

May 3, 2011 as to Defendant Casamar.

16

Plaintiff’s motion is made pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

17

Procedure. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving entitlement to the sum sought in its motion;

18

whether to enter a judgment by default is a decision entrusted to the sound discretion of the

19

district court. See Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., Inc., v. Vessel DRIVE OCEAN V, 123

20

F.Supp 2d 1201, 1208 (S.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d, 221 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 2000).

21

The Court has considered the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to

22

plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint,

23

(4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning the

24

material facts; (6) whether defendant’s default was the product of excusable neglect, and

25

(7) the strong public policy favoring decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d

Page 1 of 2

1
2

1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986).
It appearing that a proper factual basis exists for the court’s award, the court will

3

forego a hearing. Despite the strong public policy favoring decisions on the merits,

4

Defendant Casamar’s default occurred after it failed to file an answer to the complaint.

5

Defendant Casamar wholly failed to wage a defense. A review of Plaintiff’s motion plainly

6

demonstrates that Plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient, the claims are likely meritorious and

7

Plaintiff will suffer further prejudice without a judgment because Defendant Casamar will

8

not pay the amount owed without a judgment. The sum at stake directly corresponds to the

9

amount contemplated in the parties’ agreement and there is little possibility of a dispute

10
11

concerning the material facts.
Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and hereby enters a default judgment

12

in favor of Plaintiff Overseas Private Investment Corporation and against Casamar Holdings,

13

Inc., as follows:

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and

15

against Defendant in the amount of $981,953.96, together with post judgment interest that

16

will continue to accrue in the amount of $209.55 per day, as agreed upon pursuant to the

17

contract between the parties; and

18
19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees and costs
pursuant to the contract between the parties in the amount of $2,851.30.
DATED this 30th day of November, 2011.

21
22
23
24

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

25

Page 2 of 2