Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual) and Merchants National Bonding, Inc. v. Kota Resources, Inc., Redtail Holdings, LLC, Derick Williams, Nathanial Williams, and Andrea Williams

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00376
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 MERCHANTS BONDING COMPANY 11 (MUTUAL), a foreign corporation; and 12 MERCHANTS NATIONAL BONDING, Case No. 2:25-cv-00376-RAJ INC., a foreign corporation, 13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 AGAINST DEFENDANTS KOTA v. RESOURCES, INC., REDTAIL 15 HOLDINGS, LLC, DERICK KOTA RESOURCES, INC., a Washington WILLIAMS, NATHANIAL 16 corporation; REDTAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, WILLIAMS, AND ANDREA WILLIAMS 17 a Washington, limited liability company; DERICK WILLIAMS, individually; 18 OLIVER LEWIS, individually; NATHANIAL AND ANDREA 19 WILLIAMS, individually and their marital 20 community, 21 Defendants. 22

24 25 26 27 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion (the “Motion,” Dkt. # 24) 3 of Plaintiffs Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual) and Merchants National Bonding 4 Company, Inc. (collectively, “Merchants”) for Entry of Default Judgment against 5 Defendants Kota Resources, Inc., Redtail Holdings, LLC, Derick Williams, Nathanial 6 Williams, and Andrea Williams (collectively, the “Named Defendants” or “Indemnitors”). 7 The Motion was supported by the declaration of Jamie Perkins, a Claims attorney at 8 Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual). Dkt. # 25. The Court, having reviewed the 9 Motion, as well as the other pleadings and papers filed in this matter, hereby GRANTS IN 10 PART the Motion. 11 II. BACKGROUND 12 Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter on February 28, 2025, and 13 subsequently filed an amended complaint for the sole purpose of correcting the spelling of 14 one of the defendants’ names. Dkt. ## 1, 13. Plaintiffs timely effected service of the 15 summons and operative complaint on each of the Named Defendants. Dkt. # 19. This 16 Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1) because 17 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and the parties are citizens of different 18 states. Dkt. # 13 ¶ 8. The Named Defendants have failed to timely file a responsive 19 pleading or otherwise appear in this matter. Dkt. # 18 at 3. The Clerk of Court entered 20 default against the Named Defendants on June 12, 2025. Dkt. # 20. Merchants now request 21 a default judgment, including costs, attorney fees, and interest. Dkt. # 24 at 5. 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiffs request a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) 24 and Local Civil Rule 55. Dkt. # 24 at 2. The court’s role in reviewing a motion for default 25 judgment is not ministerial. It must accept all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as 26 fact, except facts related to the amount of damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 27 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). Where those facts establish a defendant’s liability, the 1 court has discretion, not an obligation, to enter a default judgment. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 2 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 3 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiffs must submit evidence supporting a claim for a 4 particular sum of damages. TeleVideo Sys., 826 F.2d at 917–18; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 55(b)(2)(B). If the plaintiffs cannot prove that the sum they seek is “a liquidated sum or 6 capable of mathematical calculation,” the court must hold a hearing or otherwise ensure 7 that the damage award is appropriate. Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 8 1981). An award of prejudgment interest is discretionary but routinely recognized as an 9 element of complete compensation. See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 175 10 (1989). 11 Taking the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as fact, the Court finds that, 12 on or about October 25, 2019, the Indemnitors executed a General Application and 13 Agreement of Indemnity (the “Indemnity Agreement”) in favor of Merchants in 14 consideration for Merchants’ issuance of surety bonds on behalf of Redtail, LLC. Dkt # 1 15 ¶¶ 11–12; Dkt. # 1-1. Under the Indemnity Agreement, the Indemnitors jointly and 16 severally agreed to indemnify Merchants against all liability, loss, and expense, including 17 court costs, attorneys’ fees, and interest, arising from the issuance of bonds, the 18 enforcement of the Indemnity Agreement, or any claims made thereunder. Dkt. # 1-1 at 2. 19 In reliance on the Indemnity Agreement, Merchants issued the following bonds on behalf 20 of Redtail, LLC: Payment and Performance Bond No. WAC 55864 (with the City of Seattle 21 as oblige), and Payment and Performance Bond No. WAC 55779 (with Snohomish County 22 as oblige). Dkt. # 13 ¶¶ 15–16. The evidence establishes that the Named Defendants are 23 liable for damages resulting from Redtail, LLC’s failure to perform its contractual 24 obligations, and the Indemnitors’ failure to honor their obligations under the Indemnity 25 Agreement. Dkt. # 25 ¶¶ 5–7. This loss consists of: (1) $1,877,148.56 in payments made 26 on claims against the bonds issued on behalf of Redtail, LLC; and (2) $1,856.40 in unpaid 27 premiums, offset by (3) recoveries totaling $213,829.93. Dkt. # 25 ¶ 7. 1 The Indemnity Agreement expressly entitles Merchants to recover attorneys’ fees, 2 court costs, prejudgment interest, and other expenses incurred to enforce its terms. Dkt. # 3 1-1 at 2. Plaintiffs at this time request $33,505.98 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and consultant 4 expenses. Dkt. # 24 at 3; Dkt. # 25 ¶ 7. However, this request is deficient insofar as it 5 seeks attorneys’ fees without stating a “basis for an award of fees and includ[ing] a 6 declaration from plaintiffs’ counsel establishing the reasonable amount of fees to be 7 awarded, including, if applicable, counsel’s hourly rate, the number of hours worked, and 8 the tasks performed.” LCR 55(b)(2)(C). Plaintiffs have not submitted a declaration 9 sufficiently substantiating the fees request. See Dkt. # 25-1 (classifying $33,465.98, 10 purportedly including attorneys’ fees, as “Expenses Paid”). Separately, Merchants indicate 11 that they plan to “submit a supplemental application following the Court’s entry of default 12 judgment to quantify any additional attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.” Dkt. 13 # 24 at 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to provide the Court with an updated accounting 14 (i) substantiating the $33,465.98 in “attorney fees, costs, and consultant expenses” 15 requested in the Motion; and (ii) detailing the basis for any additional fees, costs, and 16 interest owed (with supporting documentary evidence), within 21 calendar days of this 17 Order, so that judgment may be entered. 18 IV. CONCLUSION 19 The Court, having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, 20 finds adequate bases for entering default judgment on $1,877,148.56 in payments made on 21 claims against the bonds issued on behalf of Redtail, LLC and $1,856.40 in unpaid 22 premiums, offset by recoveries totaling $213,829.93. Accordingly, the Court hereby finds 23 and ORDERS: 24 (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, Dkt. #24, is GRANTED IN PART. 25 Plaintiffs are awarded $1,665,175.03 in damages. 26 // 27 // 1 (2) No later than 21 calendar days from the date of this Order, Plaintiffs will provide 2 the Court with an updated accounting, limited to six (6) pages, which: (i) substantiates the 3 $33,465.98 in “attorney fees, costs, and consultant expenses” already requested; and (ii) 4 details the basis for any additional fees, costs, and interest owed, with supporting 5 documentary evidence. 6 DATED this 9th day of December, 2025. 7 8 A 9

10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 11 United States District Judge 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27