Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00430/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00430-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS FREIGHT LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SNOW JOE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00430-JLT-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Doc. 20)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff JS Freight LLC’s motion for default 

judgment against Defendant Snow Joe LLC. (Doc. 20.) The motion was referred to the 

undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Defendants did not file an 

opposition to the motion, and the time in which to do so has passed. L.R. 230(c) (“Opposition . . 

. to the granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and served no later than 

fourteen (14) days after the motion was filed”.) 

Having considered the moving papers, supplemental briefing, and the record in this action, 

and for the reasons that follow, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment be denied.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action alleging a breach of contract by Defendant 

due to Defendant’s failure to fully pay for the services rendered by Plaintiff. (Doc. 1.) On April 

17, 2024, District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston issued an order dismissing the matter without 

Case 1:24-cv-00430-JLT-BAM Document 21 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and permitting Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on May 8, 2024. (Doc. 5.) 

On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service stating that Defendant Snow Joe LLC 

was served on July 2, 2024. (Doc. 9.) On July 10, 2024, the Court convened a status conference 

to address service of process. Plaintiff's counsel noted that Plaintiff had filed a proof of service 

on July 9, 2024, which showed personal service upon Defendant Snow Joe LLC by personal 

service upon Joseph Cohen. (Doc. 11.) At the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel stated that Joseph 

Cohen was the agent for service of process for Defendant Snow Joe LLC. (Id.) On September 5, 

2024, default was entered against Defendant Snow Joe LLC. (Doc. 15.) 

On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 18.) The 

Court issued a minute order noting that the motion did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 55(b)(1) for entry of default judgment by the Clerk, nor did it comply with Rule 

55(b)(2) for entry of default judgment by the Court. (Doc. 19.) The Court further directed 

Plaintiff to file an amended motion for default judgment that complied with Rule 55(b). (Id.) 

Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for default judgment on November 26, 2024. (Doc. 20.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1) outlines the circumstances under which the clerk 

of the court may enter default judgment. “If the plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain or a sum that 

can be made certain by computation, the clerk--on the plaintiff's request, with an affidavit 

showing the amount due--must enter judgment for that amount and costs against a defendant who 

has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an incompetent person.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) states that in “all other cases,

the party must apply to the court for a default judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). “The court 

may conduct hearings or make referrals--preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial--

when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine the 

amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any 

other matter.” Id. “Upon default, the well-pleaded allegations of a complaint relating to liability 

are taken as true.” Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 

Case 1:24-cv-00430-JLT-BAM Document 21 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

1323 (7th Cir. 1983); TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of a 

default judgment include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of 

plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in 

the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was 

due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 

1986); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

First, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment does not meet the requirements of Rule 

55(b)(1). Plaintiff’s motion “requests that judgment by default be entered for the relief requested 

in Plaintiff’s complaint on file in this case” and states “All parts of the Plaintiff’s claim is 

liquidated and proved by an instrument in writing.” (Doc. 20 at 2.) However, the supporting 

affidavit only includes information regarding service of the complaint, Defendant’s time to 

respond, and Defendant’s status as neither a minor nor incompetent person. (Id. at 3-4.) To the 

extent that Plaintiff seeks “for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation” 

by the clerk of court under Rule 55(b)(1), Plaintiff has not included the requisite “affidavit 

showing the amount due” that the Rule requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1). Plaintiff is therefore 

not entitled to default judgment under Rule 55(b)(1).

Further, the Court finds that default judgment by the Clerk is not appropriate in this case. 

While the first amended complaint seeks a “sum certain,” such sum is calculable only by 

reference to voluminous legal documents, without any monetary value, attached to the complaint. 

(See Doc. 5.) Such calculations are beyond the ministerial functions of the Clerk. In the Rule 55 

context, a claim is not a sum certain unless there is no doubt as to the “amount to which a plaintiff 

is entitled as a result of the defendant's default.” Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington 

Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Given these circumstances, the 

appropriate Rule 55 method for a default judgment is to apply to the Court pursuant to Rule 

55(b)(2).

Case 1:24-cv-00430-JLT-BAM Document 21 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Second, to the extent that Plaintiff is applying to the Court for a default judgment, Plaintiff 

addresses none of the Eitel factors, solely including a supporting affidavit which states: the date 

of service, that Defendant’s time to respond has expired, and that Defendant is neither a minor 

nor an incompetent person. (Doc. 20 at 4.) As the Court typically utilizes the Eitel factors in its 

analysis of motions for default judgment, the failure by the party seeking default judgment to 

address them weighs against granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Plaintiff is 

therefore not entitled to default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2).

As Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment again does not comply with the requirements of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, the Court will recommend denying Plaintiff’s motion for 

default judgment.

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for 

default judgment (Doc. 20) be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to 

mail a copy of these findings and recommendations to Defendant at Defendant’s last known 

address.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00430-JLT-BAM Document 21 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 4