Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00332-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CIV-S-07-0332 JAM GGH 

MONARCH DREDGING, INC., et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Defendants. 

___________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment against defendants Monarch

Dredging, Inc. and John B. Anderson, filed April 1, 2008, was submitted on the record. Local

Rule 78-230(h). Upon review of the motion and the supporting documents, the court determined

that further briefing by the government was necessary on the issues of damages. Having now

reviewed that briefing and good cause appearing, the court issues the following findings and

recommendations.

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2007, plaintiff filed this action against defendants Monarch

Dredging, Inc. and John B. Anderson. On August 31, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended

complaint, alleging defendants operated a barge which sank on September 7, 2003, discharging

Case 2:07-cv-00332-JAM-GGH Document 29 Filed 10/02/08 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

2

approximately 1,000 gallons of motor oil, diesel, and hazardous substances, impacting about 1.8

miles of shoreline near the Sacramento River. After the barge was raised, it was revealed that

more than 3,000 gallons of waste oil had been contained in it, and that the barge had been used

for illegal dumping of oil and hazardous materials. Lebsack Decl., Ex. A to Pl.’s Further

Briefing, filed July 18, 2008. The summons and complaint were served on defendant Monarch

Dredging by personal service on its agent for service, Jeffrey Middlekauff, on February 28, 2007. 

The summons and complaint were served on John Anderson by substituted service on Edie

Anderson at defendant’s home on April 10, 2007, with follow-up service by first class mail. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th

Cir. 1985) (default judgment void without personal jurisdiction). Defendants have failed to file

an answer or otherwise appear in this action. On October 29, 2007, the clerk entered default

against defendants Monarch Dredging and John Anderson. 

The instant motion for default judgment and supporting papers were served by

mail on defendants at their last known addresses. Defendants filed no opposition to the motion

for entry of default judgment. Plaintiff seeks an entry of default judgment in the amount of

$2,481,661.72. 

DISCUSSION

The United States brought this action under several theories, most notably, The

Oil Pollution Act of 1990, CERCLA, and the Clean Water Act. The United States seeks

damages by way of default judgment, however, only under the Oil Pollution Act. In initially

reviewing the motion for default judgment, the undersigned could not determine whether the

damages limitations provisions of the Oil Pollution Act then in effect, limiting damages to

$500,000, applied notwithstanding the United States demand for $2,481, 661.72. Thus, the

undersigned asked for further briefing.

The Amended Verified Complaint alleges in paragraph 32 that the oil leakage was

caused by, inter alia, the “gross negligence” of defendants. That is sufficient to render the

Case 2:07-cv-00332-JAM-GGH Document 29 Filed 10/02/08 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

3

damages limitations provision of the Oil Pollution Act inoperative. 33 U.S.C. § 2704(c). The

damages amount sought by the United States pursuant to the Act is comprised only of verifiable

response costs as set forth in the moving papers regarding default judgment. 

Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the

complaint by the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir.

1977). The court finds the well pleaded allegations of the complaint state a claim for which

relief can be granted. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). The

memorandum of points and authorities and affidavits filed in support of the motion for entry of

default judgment, as well as the further briefing submitted in support of the damages claimed,

also support the finding that plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. There are no policy

considerations which preclude the entry of default judgment of the type requested. See Eitel v.

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 

In view of the foregoing findings, it is the recommendation of this court that

plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment be GRANTED. Judgment should be rendered in

the amount of $ 2,481,661.72. A proposed judgment has been lodged by plaintiff and is

approved as to form and substance. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-00332-JAM-GGH Document 29 Filed 10/02/08 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

4

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 10/02/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

USMonarch0332.def.wpd

Case 2:07-cv-00332-JAM-GGH Document 29 Filed 10/02/08 Page 4 of 4