BMO Bank N.A. v. Singh

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-1517 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT ) JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK 14 HARJIT SINGH, ) OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE ) 15 Defendant. ) (Docs. 12, 17) ) 16

17 BMO Harris Bank N.A. seeks to hold Harjit Singh liable for breach of contract related to a 18 Loan and Security Agreement. (See generally Doc. 1.) After Defendant failed to answer, the 19 Court entered default against Defendant. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against 20 Defendant. (Doc. 12.) 21 The magistrate judge determined the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims 22 presented and personal jurisdiction over Defendant. (Doc. 17 at 5-6.) The magistrate judge also 23 found Plaintiff complied with the service requirements under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 24 Procedure. (Id. at 6-7.) Examining the sufficiency of the complaint, the magistrate judge found 25 Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for breach of contract against Defendant and 26 “submits evidence in support of its damages claim.” (Id. at 8.) The magistrate judge determined 27 the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 28 1986) weighed in favor of default judgment and recommended the Court grant the motion; award 1 possessing of the identified vehicles; and award monetary damages in the amount of $115,098.37, 2 plus post-judgment interest. (Id. at 7-10.) 3 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs. 4 (Doc. 17 at 10-12.) The magistrate judge found the requested hourly rate of $325 was reasonable 5 based upon the experience of counsel. (Id. at 10-11.) In addition, the magistrate judge observed: 6 “According to the declaration of Attorney Ito and the corresponding invoices for legal services, 7 Attorney Ito expended a total of 11 hours of work and billed the Plaintiff $3,575.00 for attorney 8 fees in relation to this matter through April 24, 2025.” (Id. at 11.) The magistrate judge noted 9 Mr. Ito also anticipated that it would “take at least 3 hours at a rate of $325” to complete the 10 motion for default judgment, excluding any appearance at a hearing on the motion. (Id.) The 11 magistrate judge recommended the anticipated time not be awarded, because there was “no 12 evidence to support this estimate.” (Id.) Finally, the magistrate judge also found costs in the 13 amount of $805.18—which included the court filing fee and service of process—were reasonable 14 and recommended the Court award the requested amount. (Id. at 12.) 15 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff, which served the 16 document on Defendant and filed proof of service. (Doc. 18.) The Court notified the parties that 17 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 17 at 13.) The Court advised the parties that the 18 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on 19 appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections 20 were filed, and the deadline for doing so has passed. 21 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 22 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 23 are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 24 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued June 13, 2025 (Doc. 17) are ADOPTED 25 in full. 26 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 12) is GRANTED in part. 27 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED monetary damages in the amount of $115,098.37. 28 4. Plaintiff is AWARDED interest at the contracted rates for the identified Agreements. 1 5. Plaintiff's request for fees and costs is GRANTED, in the modified amount of 2 $3,575.00 in attorney fees and $805.18 in costs, for a total of $4,380.18. 3 6. Plaintiff is AWARDED possession of the subject vehicles and Defendant SHALL 4 return and/or permit Plaintiff to take possession of the following: 5 a. 2022 Utility Refrigerated Vans 53’ with 2022 Thermo King $600, Vehicle ID No. 6 3UTVS253XN8706203 and 7 b. 2023 Utility Refrigerated Vans 53’ with 2022 Thermo King S600, Vehicle ID No. 8 1UYVS2532P2768318. 9 7. Upon recovery and sale of the vehicles in a commercially reasonable manner, Plaintiff 10 SHALL credit the net sale proceeds of the vehicle toward the monetary judgment 11 awarded herein. 12 8. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against 13 Defendant, and to close this case. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: _ June 30, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28