Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01518/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01518-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

THE RICE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1518 LKK PAN 

vs.

ABCOM TRADING PRIVATE LTD.,

SINGAPORE,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On March 2, 2006, this court heard plaintiff’s motion for default judgment

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) against sole defendant ABCOM Trading Private Ltd.,

Singapore. Defendant neither appeared at the hearing nor filed a responsive pleading despite

being duly served with all pertinent documents. Upon review of the file and motion,

consideration of plaintiff’s oral argument and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT

MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

The First Amended Complaint, filed September 29, 2005, properly invokes this

court’s diversity jurisdiction and asserts plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement on

May 7, 2004, for the joint marketing of agricultural commodities to Asia and the Middle East. 

Plaintiff alleges defendant breached the parties’ contract, which included an agreement to share

Case 2:05-cv-01518-LKK -PAN Document 30 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 Requested costs are limited to $250.00 filing fee and $51.32 process server. Decl. Of 1

Adam Brown, plaintiff’s counsel.

2

equally in all losses, and seeks declaratory relief and damages for one-half of the venture’s

losses, or $474,947.71 plus interest and costs.

Plaintiff timely and properly served the complaint upon defendant pursuant to the

instructions of the District Judge. See Order filed November 17, 2005, and Certificates of

Service filed November 14 and 17, 2005. See Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main

Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (default judgment void without personal

jurisdiction). Defendant has not filed an answer or otherwise appeared in this action. 

The Clerk of Court entered default against defendant on December 19, 2005. 

Notice of the entry of default as well as plaintiff's present motion for entry of default judgment

were duly served on defendant in the manner authorized by the District Judge. Defendant filed

no opposition to the motion for entry of default judgment and did not appear at the hearing.

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 complaint and the affidavits filed in support of this motion support the finding

plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in the prayer for default judgment, which does not

differ in kind from the relief requested in the complaint. Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315, 317

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832 (1974). 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).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for entry

of default judgment, filed February 23, 2006, be granted, and damages awarded in the total

amount of $475,249.03 ($474,947.71 principal plus $301.21 costs ), plus post-judgment interest 1

on the principal at the legal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence K.

Karlton, the United States District Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

Case 2:05-cv-01518-LKK -PAN Document 30 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The failure to 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: June 12, 2006.

NOW6:RICE.MtnDefJdgmt.JFM

Case 2:05-cv-01518-LKK -PAN Document 30 Filed 06/13/06 Page 3 of 3