Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02800/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02800-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1 

 NO. C 09‐02800  RS

RWR ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 1/5/10* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

THAICOM PUBLIC COMPANY 

LIMITED, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

QUALCORE LOGIC (ANALOG), INC., 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-02800 RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff Thaicom Public Company Limited’s motion 

for default judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted and default judgment 

will be entered against the defendant, Qualcore Logic (Analog), Inc. 

II. BACKGROUND 

 Thaicom brought this action in June of 2009, alleging that Qualcore had breached the terms 

of a written settlement agreement, pursuant to which Qualcore was required to make 60 monthly 

payments to Thaicom of $4166.67 each, for a total of $250,000. Complaint ¶ 10. Qualcore only 

Case 5:09-cv-02800-RS Document 24 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

 NO. C 09‐02800  RS

RWR ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

made six payments under the agreement, the last of which was made on January 31, 2007, for a total 

of $41,666.70. Complaint ¶ 12. 

 The complaint was personally served on Qualcore’s agent for service of process on June 24, 

2009. See Declaration of Leeron G. Kalay in Support of Request for Default Judgment, Exh. A. 

Thaicom subsequently received a request from an attorney employed by an affiliate of Qualcore 

seeking an extension of time to respond to this action, for the purpose of allowing the parties to 

engage in settlement negotiations. See Declaration of Matthew L. Levine in Support of Request for 

Entry of Default, ¶ 4. The attorney advised Thaicom that in the event the parties did not reach a 

settlement, Qualcore was unlikely to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Id. at ¶ 5. 

 The parties failed to reach a settlement, and the extension of time granted by Thaicom 

expired. Id. at ¶ 6. At Thaicom’s request, the Clerk entered Qualcore’s default on September 2, 

2009. This motion was heard on November 18, 2009. Qualcore did not appear at the hearing. 

III. STANDARD 

 Following entry of default, courts are authorized to grant default judgment in their 

discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In 

exercising its discretion, the factors the court may consider 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). In considering these factors, all factual allegations in the plaintiff’s 

complaint are taken as true, except for those relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 

826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). 

 As to damages, when the damages claimed are not readily ascertainable from the pleadings 

and the record, the court may (but is not required to) conduct a hearing to determine the amount of 

damages. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). California statutory law, which governs the contract here, 

provides that “[n]o damages can be recovered for a breach of contract which are not clearly 

Case 5:09-cv-02800-RS Document 24 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 4
3 

 NO. C 09‐02800  RS

RWR ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

ascertainable in both their nature and origin.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3301. The measure of damages for 

breach of contract is the amount that will compensate the injured party for all the detriment 

proximately caused by the breach, or which, in the ordinary course of events, will be likely to result 

from the breach. Cal. Civ. Code § 3300. Damages are awarded in a breach of contract action to 

give the injured party the benefit of the bargain, and insofar as possible to place that party in the 

position he or she would have been in had the promisor performed the contract. Noble v. Tweedy, 90 

Cal. App. 2d 738, 745 (1949). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

 In this case, the Eitel factors strongly weigh in favor of granting Thaicom’s motion for 

default judgment. The allegations in the complaint, taken as true, establish the existence of 

Qualcore’s obligation to pay and its breach. There is no uncertainty as to the amount of damages, as 

they are readily calculable from the face of the parties’ contract and are clearly set out both in the 

complaint and in the declaration submitted in support of this motion. It appears likely that Qualcore 

would not dispute any of the facts and that it has made a business decision to allow judgment to be 

entered against it. Qualcore plainly had notice of this action and the precise amount of damages 

claimed, and it understood that it had an obligation to file a response. Qualcore may be presumed to 

have understood the consequences of failing to respond, as it apparently had the advice of counsel. 

 Under these circumstances, the policy favoring decisions on the merits must yield to 

plaintiff’s right to a judicial determination of its claim. Judgment for Thaicom will be entered in the 

principal amount of $166,666.80. Pursuant to California Civil Code §3289, Thaicom seeks 

prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent. Because the damages were certain, prejudgment 

interest is appropriate. 

 At the hearing, and by supplemental declaration, Thaicom has requested interest from and 

after February 17, 2007, one month after the last payment was made, and when the next payment 

was due. Because the principal amount past due continued to increase each month until September 

of 2009, Thaicom has provided a breakdown of the interest accruing each month, and has shown 

that as of September 16, 2009, the total amount of interest due was $25,833.35. See Supplemental 

Case 5:09-cv-02800-RS Document 24 Filed 01/05/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

 NO. C 09‐02800  RS

RWR ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

Kalay Decl., Exh A. Thereafter, interest continued to accrue on the full principle balance of 

$166,666.80 at the rate of $45.66 per day ($166,666.80 × 10% ÷ 365). From September 17, 2009, 

through the date of this order, 111 days have elapsed, resulting in additional interest of $5068.26. 

Accordingly, the total prejudgment interest amount is $30,901.61. 

V. CONCLUSION 

 The motion is granted. Default judgment will be entered in the principal amount of 

$166,666.80 with prejudgment interest of $30,901.6 for a total of $197,568.41. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 5, 2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:09-cv-02800-RS Document 24 Filed 01/05/10 Page 4 of 4