BMO Bank N.A. v. H&R Transport

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BMO BANK N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-00710-KES-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 H&R TRANSPORT, et al., Docs. 11, 24 15 Defendants.

16 17 18 Plaintiff BMO Bank N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 18, 2024. Doc. 1. On 19 September 18, 2024, plaintiff moved for default judgment against defendants H&R Transport 20 (“H&R”) and Harmandeep Singh Gill (“Gill”) on state law breach of contract claims. Doc. 11. 21 This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 22 and Local Rule 302. 23 On March 11, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 24 recommending that the motion for default judgment be granted in part. Doc. 24. Specifically, the 25 findings and recommendations found that plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for entering 26 default judgment as to its breach of contract claim under the factors laid out in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986). Id. at 4–11. The magistrate judge also found that the amount 27 sought for damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of litigation was reasonable. Id. at 11–16. The 28 1 findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 2 fourteen (14) days after service. Id. at 17. Defendants did not file any objections, and the time to 3 do so has passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings 5 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Doc. 11, is GRANTED, as specified below: 8 a. Judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff BMO Bank N.A. against 9 defendants H&R Transport and Harmandeep Singh Gill. 10 b. Plaintiff is awarded $480,865.04 in monetary damages.1 11 c. Plaintiff is awarded prejudgment interest accrued through the date of judgment 12 at the contracted daily rates of: (1) $38.22 for Agreement 8001 for every day 13 after August 22, 2024; (2) $38.56 for Agreement 2001 for every day after 14 August 22, 2024; (3) $48.76 for Agreement 1001 for every day after August 15 22, 2024; and (4) $92.66 for Agreement 7001 for every day after August 22, 16 2024.2 17 d. Plaintiff is awarded $3,347.50 in attorneys’ fees and $557.14 in costs. 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 ///

22 1 The magistrate judge’s recommendations misstated the monetary damages due by including the 23 attorneys’ fees and costs as part of the monetary damages award while also including the same attorneys’ fees and costs as a separate award. Doc. 24 at 16. The present Order includes the 24 attorneys’ fees and costs as a separate award and deducts the duplicate amount of such attorneys’ fees and costs from the monetary damages award. As reflected in this Order, the correct amount 25 of monetary damages owed is $480,865.04.

26 2 The magistrate judge’s recommendations misstated the amount of prejudgment interest awarded 27 under Agreement 7001 as $96.22 for every day after August 22, 2024. Doc. 24 at 16. As reflected in this Order, the correct amount of prejudgment interested awarded under Agreement 28 7001 is $92.66 for every day after August 22, 2024. 1 2. Upon recovery and sale of the identified vehicles in a commercially reasonable 2 manner, the money judgment entered shall be credited with the net sale proceeds of 3 the vehicles. 4 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 8 Dated: _ May 21, 2025 4h | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28