Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00206/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00206-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sierra Seed Internacional SA de CV,

Sierra Seed Company, LLLP, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Al Harrison Company Distributors, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 13-206 TUC LAB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a motion for default judgment filed by the plaintiff on May

15, 2013. (Doc. 13) The defendant did not file a response.

The plaintiff in this case, Sierra Seed Internacional, brings an action for breach of

contract under the CISG (the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International

Sale of Goods). (Doc. 1, p. 2). It moves for default judgment against the defendant, Al

Harrison Company Distributors, which has failed to appear.

Magistrate Judge Bowman currently presides over this case pursuant to the Local

Rules pending the consent of all parties. See LRCiv 3.7 (b). Because the defendant has not

appeared, this report and recommendation will be directed to United States District Judge

Raner C. Collins. 

Case 4:13-cv-00206-LAB Document 14 Filed 06/10/13 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 -

Factual and Procedural History

Sierra Seed is a Mexican corporation with its principal place of business in Nogales,

Sonora, Mexico. (Doc. 1, p. 1) Al Harrison is an Arizona corporation with its principal

place of business in Nogales, Arizona. Id.

Sierra Seed sold to Al Harrison assorted seeds, which were invoiced on four separate

dates in July and August of 2011. (Doc. 13-2, pp. 2-3) Payment was due in November and

December of 2011, but despite repeated demands, it was not forthcoming. Id. 

On March 28, 2013, Sierra Seed filed a complaint in this court claiming breach of

contract pursuant to the CISG (the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the

International Sale of Goods). (Doc. 1) Sierra Seed invokes this court’s federal question

jurisdiction. (Doc. 1, ¶ 3)

“[I]nternational sales contracts are ordinarily governed by a multilateral treaty, the

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“C.I.S.G.”),

which applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in

different States when the States are Contracting States.” Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd.

v. Sabate USA Inc., 328 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir. 2003) (punctuation modified); cert. denied,

540 U.S. 1029 (2003). The CISG is “the ‘international analogue’ to Article 2 of the Uniform

Commercial Code (UCC).” Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. v. Becwood Technology Group

L.L.C., 635 F.3d 1106, 1107 (8th Cir. 2011); see 19 I.L.M. 668, 672 (1980). “[T]he

Convention’s structure confirms what common sense (and the common law) dictate as the

universal elements of a breach-of-contract action: formation, performance, breach and

damages.” Id. at 1108 (punctuation modified). 

Al Harrison was personally served with a summons and complaint on April 1, 2013.

(Doc. 8, p. 1) It failed, however, to file a responsive pleading. Id., p. 2. On April 25, 2013,

Sierra Seed filed an application for entry of default, which was granted on May 8, 2013.

(Docs. 8, 9, 11)

On May 15, 2013, Sierra Seed filed the instant motion for default judgment. (Doc.

13) In its motion, Sierra Seed asks for default judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(1)

Case 4:13-cv-00206-LAB Document 14 Filed 06/10/13 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 -

on the assumption that its claim is for a sum certain. Sierra Seed, however, asks, among

other things, for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees; and reasonable attorney’s fees

cannot qualify as a sum certain. See Stolicker v. Muller, Muller, Richmond, Harms, Myers,

and Sgroi, P.C., 2005 WL 2180481, 5 (W.D.Mich. 2005); Flynn v. Mastro Masonry

Contractors, 237 F.Supp.2d 66, 70 (D.D.C. 2002). Accordingly, the court analyzes the

motion as though it were brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). 

Discussion

After the entry of default, the court may issue a default judgment against a nonappearing party. FED.R.CIV.P. 55(b)(2). The decision to issue judgment is a matter left to

the sound discretion of the court. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). 

“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,

1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). The court will assume the factual allegations made in the

complaint are true, except those related to damages. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal,

826 F.2d 915, 917-918 (9th Cir. 1987).

The court finds Sierra Seed is entitled to a default judgment. The defendant was

served with process but failed to appear. (Doc. 13) Accordingly, Sierra Seed would be

without any other recourse should its motion be denied. Assuming the factual allegations

made in the complaint are true, Sierra Seed’s claim has merit. The cause of action, breach

of contract for failure to pay, is a simple one. It is unlikely that there would be a dispute as

to the material facts. Judgment should be entered for the plaintiff in the amount of

$72,452.18 plus costs of $410. (Doc. 13-2, p. 4); (Doc. 13-3, p. 3); see also FED.R.CIV.P.

54(d)(1).

Case 4:13-cv-00206-LAB Document 14 Filed 06/10/13 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 -

Sierra Seed also requests prejudgment interest pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1201 and

attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01. (Doc. 13, p. 2) This court, however, is not

sitting in diversity, and the plaintiff provides no reason why these state statutes should apply

to this action. See (Doc. 1, ¶ 3)

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

GRANTING IN PART the motion for default judgment filed by the plaintiff on May

15, 2013. (Doc. 13) Judgment should be entered against the defendant, Al Harrison

Company Distributors, in the amount of $72,452.18 plus costs of $410.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. Reply briefs are not permitted under the Local

Rules. 

DATED this 10th day of June, 2013.

Case 4:13-cv-00206-LAB Document 14 Filed 06/10/13 Page 4 of 4