Ferrari Financial Services Inc v. ZCrete Systems International Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 21, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00198
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 FERRARI FINANCIAL SERVICES, 9

Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 2:21-cv-00198-RAJ v. 11 ORDER

ZCRETE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, 12 INC., a Washington corporation; BRIAN 13 WAYNE BROGIE, an individual, 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to 17 Augment the Amended Judgment, Dkt. # 37, and Motion to Seal. Dkt. # 39. Plaintiff, 18 through counsel, appeared before this Court for a motion hearing on November 16, 2023, 19 Dkt. # 41, and submitted a Supplement to its Motion to Augment. Dkt. # 42. For the 20 reasons set forth below, the Motion to Augment the Amended Judgment is GRANTED 21 and the Motion to Seal is GRANTED in part. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff Ferrari Financial Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a 24 complaint for replevin alleging that Defendants ZCrete Systems International and Brian 25 Brogie (collectively, “Defendants”) had defaulted on a lease agreement (the “Lease 26 Agreement”) of a vehicle and refused to pay amounts due under the Agreement. Dkt. # 1. 27 1 Defendants failed to appear or otherwise plead in the matter. The Court granted default 2 judgment in favor of Plaintiff and a writ of replevin for the vehicle. Dkt. # 17. In 3 addition, Plaintiff was awarded general damages in the amount of $209.513.24, as well as 4 reasonable attorney fees and costs and post-judgment interest on all amounts due at the 5 contractual default rate. Id. at 5. 6 The Court later granted Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of 7 $23,046.44, Dkt. # 33, and entered an Amended Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against 8 Defendants in the amount of $233,034.68. Dkt. # 36. Plaintiff now seeks to augment the 9 judgment based on Defendants’ refusal to return the subject vehicle as required by the 10 parties’ Lease Agreement and the Court’s order. Dkt. # 37 at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff 11 requests $25,415.00 in attorneys’ fees and $194,678.32 in unpaid lease payments that 12 have accrued since the filing of the original complaint in February 2021. Dkt. # 37. 13 A.) Motion to Augment Amended Judgment (Dkt. # 37) 14 The parties Lease Agreement provides that Defendants are responsible for unpaid 15 monthly lease payments for every month that they do not return the subject vehicle and 16 for associated attorneys’ fees and costs. See Dkt. # 1, Ex. A (Lease Agreement, Section 17 29 (“End of Term Liability”) and Section 32 (“Remedies”)). Further, under Washington 18 law, a party may seek attorneys’ fees after the entry of a default judgment if the parties’ 19 contract provides for such an award. See, e.g., Johnson v. Cash Store, 116 WnApp. 833, 20 840 (2003) (upholding trial court’s award of additional attorneys’ fees after the entry of a 21 default judgment). At this time, Plaintiff has continued to accrue attorneys’ fees 22 associated with the domestication of the Amended Judgment in California in order to 23 execute on Defendants’ California-based assets and ongoing attempts to locate the 24 vehicle. Dkt. # 37 at 2. At the November 17, 2023 status hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel 25 stated that they recently made contact with Defendant Brogie; however, Brogie still 26 refuses to surrender the vehicle. Dkt. # 41. 27 Given Plaintiff’s continuing attempts to execute on the Amended Judgment, this 1 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to augment the Amended Judgment to include 2 additional unpaid lease payments associated with the vehicle in the amount of 3 $194,678.32 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $25,415.00. 4 B.) Motion to Seal (Dkt. # 39) 5 The Court next considers Plaintiff’s motion to seal the declaration of Tanya N. 6 Lewis in support of Plaintiff’s motion to augment the amended judgment (“Lewis 7 Declaration”). Dkt. ## 39, 40. Plaintiff contends that the Lewis Declaration should be 8 sealed because it “contains confidential and proprietary information containing 9 descriptions of work performed by FFS’s attorneys in support of this case, as well as a 10 confidential accounting of attorney fees incurred by FFS in undertaking this action.” Dkt. 11 # 39 at 2. 12 Under the local rules, there is “a strong presumption of public access to the court’s 13 files.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g). A motion to seal a document must include an 14 explanation of “the legitimate private or public interests that warrant the relief sought . . . 15 the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted.” LCR 5(g)(3). A party seeking 16 to seal records attached to non-dispositive motions must show “good cause” under Rule 17 26(c). Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). “A 18 party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to 19 protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 20 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit has held that 21 “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated 22 reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 23 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted). 24 While the Court understands Defendant’s interest in maintaining the 25 confidentiality of business-related information, the Court must balance this with the right 26 of public access. See LCR 5(g). After reviewing the Declaration, the Court finds good 27 cause to redact parts of the Declaration; specifically, counsel’s billing rates and total 1 amount billed per attorney in this matter (located within the Lewis Declaration), and the 2 detailed bills and invoices of attorney time attached to the Lewis Declaration (located in 3 redacted form at Dkt. # 38-1). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to seal is GRANTED in 4 part. Plaintiff shall submit a copy of the Lewis Declaration with redactions as set forth in 5 this Order for filing on the docket as a public entry within ten (10) days of the date of this 6 Order. 7 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment the Amended 10 Judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. # 37. Plaintiff is awarded additional unpaid lease 11 payments of $194,679.32 and associated attorneys’ fees of $25,415.00. The Clerk is 12 ordered to enter judgment in the amount of $453,129.00. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is 13 GRANTED in part. Dkt. # 39. Plaintiff shall file a copy of the Lewis Declaration with 14 redactions as set forth in this Order within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. The 15 Declaration located at Dkt. # 40 shall remain under seal.

16 DATED this 21st day of November, 2023. 17

18 A 19 20 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 21

22 23 24 25 26 27