Bornstein Seafoods Inc., v. Bilodid et al
MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Default Judgment. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS, INC.,
OLEG BILODID, et al.,
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
Oleg Bilodid: Plaintiff has not demonstrated that default judgment
should be entered against defendant Oleg Bilodid in his individual capacity.
Every invoice submitted with plaintiff’s motion was billed to Alaska Trading Ltd
and listed either Alaska Trading Ltd or Ukrkharchprodservice Ltd as the entity to
which the product at issue was shipped. Plaintiff has made no allegation in its
complaint or in its motion papers that would justify piercing the corporate veil.
The only document that might suggest Oleg Bilodid was personally responsible
for the sums plaintiff claims are due is an email from email@example.com
declaring “[t]he rest is my debt.” Ex. B to Bornstein Decl. (docket no. 14-1 at 36).
Given the context in which this statement was made, i.e., immediately after
discussing the amount owed by another company, the Court cannot infer that the
author of the email, even assuming it was Bilodid, meant “my personal debt,” as
opposed to “my company’s debt.”
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, docket no. 13, is DENIED.
Alyaska LDD OOO:1 In support of its motion, plaintiff has
submitted various sales invoices, “proforma” invoices, and bills of lading, which
The caption of the complaint identifies as a defendant “Alyaska LDD OOO d/b/a Alaska Trade,
Ltd.,” but the body of the complaint indicates that “Bilodid is the principal/owner of defendant
MINUTE ORDER - 1
appear to evidence business dealings between plaintiff, a Washington corporation,
and Alaska Trading Ltd and/or Ukrkharchprodservice Ltd, both of which have
addresses in Keiv, Ukraine. In such materials, defendant Alyaska LDD OOO, a
Ukrainian limited liability company (“Alyaska”), is never mentioned. Plaintiff has
alleged that Alyaska does business as “Alaska Trade, Ltd.,” not “Alaska Trading
Ltd” or “Ukrkharchprodservice Ltd,” and the Court is not satisfied, based on the
current record, that it has personal jurisdiction over defendant Alyaska. See Gray
& Co. v. Firstenberg Mach. Co., 913 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1990). In addition, absent
some explanation concerning the relationship between the various sales invoices,
“proforma” invoices, and bills of lading, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s
claim is for “a sum that can be made certain by computation.” See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(b)(1). Each “proforma” invoice, unlike any of the sales invoices, contains
routing information for plaintiff’s bank account,2 thereby indicating a demand for
payment. Each “proforma” invoice also identifies one or more related sales order
numbers, which do not entirely correlate with the sales invoices for which plaintiff
seeks default judgment.3 Plaintiff does not claim entitlement to the total amounts
Alyaska Trade OOO d/b/a Alaska Trade, Ltd.” See Compl. at p.1 (docket no. 1) (emphasis
11 added). Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment targets Alyaska Trade OOO, but a supporting
declaration states that Bilodid is “the manager of Defendant Alyaska LDD OOO.” Bornstein
Decl. at ¶ 2 (docket no. 14). Plaintiff has not clearly set forth the name of the entity it has sued
12 or against which it seeks default judgment.
Such financial information should have been redacted to the last four digits pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 5.2. Upon discovering that plaintiff’s bank account number was publicly disclosed in
14 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Colin Bornstein, docket no. 14-1, the Court directed the Clerk to
seal the document. Plaintiff is advised, however, that the materials were likely uploaded, during
15 the interim, by private websites unrelated to and outside the control of the Court, and might now
be available to the public for a fee. See www.pacermonitor.com; www.law360.com. Plaintiff
16 might wish to take appropriate steps to secure its account. Plaintiff’s counsel is DIRECTED to
serve a copy of this Minute Order on plaintiff, and to file proof of such service within three (3)
days of the date of this Minute Order.
Each sales invoice references a unique sales order number. The “proforma” invoice dated
18 September 6, 2013, and labeled “Hake,” references five sales order numbers, only two of which
are related to sales invoices as to which plaintiff seeks default judgment. Similarly, the
19 “proforma” invoice dated September 6, 2013, and labeled “salmon proforma,” references four
sales order numbers, only one of which is associated with a sales invoice that plaintiff asserts is
20 unpaid. The “proforma” invoice dated September 16, 2013, contains three sales order numbers,
only two of which appear in sales invoices presented by plaintiff. In contrast, the sales order
21 numbers in a few of the sales invoices submitted by plaintiff do not appear in any of the
“proforma” invoices. In particular, sales order numbers 122284, 122412, and 122413,
referenced in sales invoices SI121023, SI121637, and SI121647, respectively, do not appear in
any “proforma” invoice filed by plaintiff.
MINUTE ORDER - 2
set forth in the “proforma” invoices, and does not explain how it calculated the
portions that it asserts remain due. Moreover, plaintiff has not provided enough
information to enable the Court to match the different bills of lading with the sales
invoices that plaintiff claims are still outstanding.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
Dated this 31st day of May, 2017.
William M. McCool
MINUTE ORDER - 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?