BMO Bank N.A. v. Royal Road Line Inc

Opinion

5 6 7 10 11 BMO BANK N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-01714 JLT EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN 13 v. PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 ROYAL ROAD LINE INC, et al., (Docs. 11, 17) 15 Defendants. 16 17 BMO Harris Bank N.A. seeks to hold Royal Road Line, Inc. and Nishan Singh, the owner 18 of Royal Road Line, liable for breach of contract. (See generally Doc. 1.) After Defendants 19 failed to answer, the Court entered default against Defendants. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff now seeks 20 default judgment against Defendants. (Doc. 11.) 21 The magistrate judge found the Court has jurisdiction over the claims presented and 22 personal jurisdiction over Defendants. (Doc. 17 at 4-6.) The magistrate judge also determined 23 Plaintiff complied with the service requirements under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 24 Procedure. (Id. at 7-8.) Examining the sufficiency of the complaint, the magistrate judge found 25 “Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts for a claim for breach of contract against Defendants” and 26 “provided sufficient proof of the damages.” (Id. at 9, 13.) The magistrate judge determined the 27 factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) 28 weighed in favor of default judgment, and recommended the motion be granted, with damages 1 awarded in the amount of $320,377.72. (Id. at 8-11.) 2 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff was also entitled to an award of attorney fees and 3 costs and that the proposed hourly rates for counsel were reasonable. (Doc. 17 at 14-15.) The 4 magistrate judge determined, however, that the time expended—and anticipated—was excessive, 5 and the billing records included clerical tasks for which fees should not be awarded. (Id. at 15- 6 16.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the attorney fees awarded in the modified 7 amount of $5,460.00. (Id. at 17.) Finally, the magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff be 8 awarded costs in the amount of $778.20. (Id.) 9 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified the parties 10 that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 17 at 17.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 11 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 12 (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 13 objections, and the time to do so has passed. 14 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 15 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 16 are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued June 6, 2024 (Doc. 17) are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 11) is GRANTED in part. 20 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED monetary damages in the amount of $320,377.72. 21 4. Plaintiff is AWARDED the prejudgment interest accrued at the contracted daily 22 rate of $9.14 for each day after February 13, 2024, as well as and the combined 23 contracted daily rate of $137.52 for each day after February 12, 2024, until the 24 entry of final judgment. 25 5. Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs is GRANTED in the modified amount of 26 $5,460.00 in fees and $778.20 in costs, for a total of $6,238.20. 27 6. Upon recovery and sale of the identified vehicles in a commercially reasonable 28 manner, Plaintiff SHALL credit the net sale proceeds of the vehicles toward the 1 monetary judgment awarded herein. 2 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff BMO Harris 3 Bank N.A. and against Defendants Royal Road Express, Inc. and Nishan Singh, 4 and to close this case. 5 7 Dated: _ August 13, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28