Sesock v. D1 Kennels

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 HOLLY SESOCK, an individual; and Case No.: 2:20-cv-01466-APG-DJA FLAVIO GUTIERREZ, an individual, 4 Order Granting in Part Motion for Default Plaintiffs Judgment 5 v. [ECF No. 52] 6 RAVEN DUDLEY, an individual; CHRIS 7 DUDLEY, an individual; D1 KENNELS, an unregistered Partnership; MIGUEL CARLOS 8 BARUSO, SR, aka ANTWAIN MCNEIL, an individual; and DOES I through X, 9 Defendants 10

11 Plaintiffs Holly Sesock and Flavio Gutierrez move for default judgment against 12 defendants Raven Dudley and Chris Dudley. 13 Default was entered against the Dudleys on February 1, 2022. ECF No. 51. The 14 plaintiffs’ motion addresses the factors listed in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 15 1986). Those factors convince me that it is appropriate to enter default judgment against the 16 Dudleys on the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. However, the plaintiffs are not entitled to 17 judgment on their claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith. The Dudleys breached 18 the terms of the contract itself (not an implied covenant). And the plaintiffs have not shown any 19 separate damages arising from an alleged breach of an implied covenant. Likewise, the plaintiffs 20 are not entitled to judgment on their claim under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act 21 (NDTPA). They offer no facts to support that claim. This is a straightforward breach-of- 22 contract lawsuit, and I will enter default judgment on that claim in the amount of $233,800. 23 ] The plaintiffs also request an award of their attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this case, based upon the defendants’ breach of the NDTPA. Because I have denied judgment on that claim, there is no basis for an award of attorney’s fees. I deny that portion of the motion. 4 I THEREFORE ORDER that the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against defendants Raven Dudley and Chris Dudley (ECF No. 52) is granted in part. Plaintiffs Holly Sesock and Flavio Gutierrez are entitled to a default judgment against defendants Raven Dudley 7||and Chris Dudley on their breach of contract claim in the amount of $233,800. However, final 8|| judgment will not be entered at this time because the plaintiffs’ other claims against the Dudleys remain. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). I order that, by March 25, 2022, the plaintiffs must file a notice of voluntary dismissal of those remaining claims, a proposed pretrial order, or a proposed alternate plan for resolution of the remaining claims. 12 DATED this 22nd day of February, 2022. 13 OO 14 ANDREW P.GORDON sits UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23