United States v. Waterer

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided October 6, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-01417·Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:22-cv-01417-RAJ 12 v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR 13 DEFAULT JUDGMENT MICHAEL T. WATERER, et al.,

14 Defendants. 15

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff United States of America moves for default judgment. Dkt. # 52. For the 18 reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 This IRS foreclosure action concerns residential, improved real property in King 21 County, Washington (the “Subject Property”) owned by Defendants Michael T. Waterer 22 and Dawn M. Waterer (the “Waterers”). Dkt. # 1. The United States first seeks to reduce 23 federal income tax assessments to judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Waterer, totaling 24 $13,735.74, plus statutory interest and any other additions permitted by law accruing 25 after September 30, 2022, until paid in full. Id., ¶ 32. Second, the United States seeks a 26 determination that any purported transfer or encumbrance of the Subject Property in favor 27 1 of Defendants Edward P. Weigelt, Jr., Frank McKeehan, and Calkins & Burke Limited, is 2 fraudulent as to the United States. Id., ¶ 48. Third, the United States seeks to foreclose its 3 federal tax liens against the Subject Property. Id., ¶ 61. 4 Defendants Renton Collections, Inc. and Alaska Cascade Financial Services were 5 named because they may claim an interest in the Subject Property. They were served. See 6 Dkt. # 13, 14. Defendants Andrew McKeehan, Lance Waterer, Juliana McKeehan, and 7 Alexander McKeehan were named because they may claim an interest in the Subject 8 Property. They were served. See Dkt. ## 18, 19, 21, 24. Collectively, the Court will refer 9 to these parties as the “defaulting defendants.” On April 6, 2023, the United States 10 requested that the clerk enter default against the defaulting defendants. Dkt. # 49. On 11 April 7, 2023, the clerk entered default. Dkt. # 50. 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 At the default judgment stage, the court presumes all well-pleaded factual 14 allegations are true, except those related to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 15 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Fair House. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 16 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). Although the entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b) is “an 17 extreme measure,” disfavored cases should be decided upon their merits whenever 18 reasonably possible. Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2002); 19 also see Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 585 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009). 20 In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1) permits the court to enter 21 default judgment when the plaintiff’s claim “is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made 22 certain by computation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1). In moving the court for default 23 judgment, a plaintiff must submit evidence supporting the claims for a particular sum of 24 damages. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B). If the plaintiff cannot prove that the sum it seeks is 25 “a liquidated sum or capable of mathematical calculation,” the court must hold a hearing 26 or otherwise ensure that the damage award is appropriate, reasonable and demonstrated by 27 evidence. Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Getty Images 1 (US), Inc. v. Virtual Clinics, 2014 WL 358412 (W.D. Wash. 2014). In determining 2 damages, a court can rely on the declarations submitted by the plaintiff. Dr. JKL Ltd. v. 3 HPC IT Educ. Ctr., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Where there is evidence 4 establishing a defendant’s liability, the court has discretion, not an obligation, to enter a 5 default judgment. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Alan 6 Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988). Since deciding 7 for or against default judgment is within the court’s discretion, a defendant’s default does 8 not de facto entitle a plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment. Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 9 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1210–11 (W.D. Wash. 2014). 10 In exercising its discretion, the Court considers the “Eitel” factors: (1) the 11 substantive merits of plaintiff’s claims, (2) the sufficiency of the claims raised in the 12 complaint, (3) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is denied, (4) the sum of 13 money at stake, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the 14 default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy favoring decisions on the 15 merits when reasonably possible. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). 16 As discussed below, the Court has considered each of the Eitel factors and finds they weigh 17 in favor of granting default judgment. 18 The Court considers the first three factors together. First, without a default 19 judgment, the title to the Subject Property could be clouded by defaulting defendants’ 20 potential interest, possibly preventing or frustrating Plaintiff's ability to satisfy the 21 Waterer’s tax liabilities. See, e.g., United States v. Aguinaldo, 2023 WL 2317351, at *2 (D. 22 Haw. Mar. 1, 2023); United States v. Beresford, 2023 WL 5488449, at *10 (W.D. Wash. 23 July 26, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 5467269 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 24 24, 2023). Thus, the absence of a default judgment poses potential prejudice to Plaintiff. 25 The merits of Plaintiff’s substantive claim, and the sufficiency of the complaint, 26 also weigh in favor of granting default judgment. Here, Plaintiff makes the following 27 allegations: (1) the defaulting defendants may have an interest in the Subject property, (2) 1 Plaintiff has valid tax liens against the Subject property, (3) foreclosure of the liens is 2 appropriate under the legal standards, and (4) none of the defaulting defendants has 3 appeared to claim an interest, despite having been served with a summons and complaint. 4 Based on these facts, the complaint is sufficient, and Plaintiff’s substantive claim has 5 merit. See, e.g., Aguinaldo, 2023 WL 2317351, at *2 (D. Haw. Mar. 1, 2023) (finding 6 complaint sufficient and that claim had merit based on allegations that default defendants 7 may have interest in property, plaintiff had valid tax liens against property, foreclosure of 8 liens was appropriate, and none of default defendants, all of whom had been served, 9 appeared to claim an interest). 10 In evaluating the fourth factor, the Court considers “the amount of money at stake 11 in relation to the seriousness of Defendant’s conduct.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Sec. 12 Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2002). In this case, Plaintiff does not seek 13 money damages, but seeks to collect unpaid taxes.