Cape Haze Investments Ltd v. Eilers

Filing 43

ORDER granting 37 Motion for default judgment against dft by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CAPE HAZE INVESTMENTS, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD D. EILERS, Defendant. CASE NO. C08-0809RSL JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

The Clerk shall enter Judgment as set forth in the following Judgment Summary. JUDGMENT SUMMARY 1. 2. Judgment Creditors: Cape Haze Investments, Ltd. and Thomas C. Scott. Judgment Creditors' Attorneys: Thomas F. Peterson and Adam R. Asher,

Socius Law Group, 601 Union Street, Suite 4950, Seattle, WA 98101, [phone]. 3. 4. Judgment Debtor: Richard D. Eilers. Judgment Debtor's Attorney: Brian H. Krikorian, 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite

4100, Seattle, WA 98104, [phone]. 5. 6. 7. 8. Amount of Judgment (Principal): $195,987.95. Pre-Judgment Interest: $75,519.84 (at 10.25 percent per annum). Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs: $56,858.70. Total Judgment: $328,366.49. -1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

9.

Post-Judgment Interest: 10.25 percent per annum.

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Judgment on the Court's Orders Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and for Award of Reasonable Attorney's Fees, the opposition filed by defendant, and plaintiffs' reply, having reviewed the Court file and being in all respects fully advised in this matter, it is hereby ORDERED that: Plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment (Dkt. #37) is GRANTED and the prior judgment in this matter (Dkt. #27) is VACATED. It is further ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered against defendant Richard Eilers and for plaintiffs Cape Haze Investments, Ltd. and Thomas C. Scott in the amount of $328,366.49, which shall bear post-judgment interest at the rate of 10.25 percent per anum.

DATED this 29th day of April, 2009.

United States District Judge

A Robert S. Lasnik

JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

-2-