Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

cal 

1

 Plaintiff’s interrogatories and document requests were served on May 18, 2007. 

1 06CV1147

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RPA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD., d/b/a

NUFURN PTY LTD.; NUFURN, INC. and

DENNIS MICHAEL KRAWCHUK, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPACT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; LEE

JOHNSON, an individual; PRE SALES, INC;

ERIC SEGAL, an individual; BZ GLOBAL

SDN. BHD.; BZ GLOBAL (H.K.) LIMITED;

CHEE CHOON CHEAH, an individual; and

KOK CHEONG SOO, an individual,

Defendants. 

KOK CHEONG SOO, an individual; and

CHEE CHOON CHEAH, an individual,

Counter-Plaintiffs,

v.

DENNIS MICHAEL DRAWCHUK, an

individual,

Counter-Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

Report and Recommendation 

[Doc. No. 93]

On September 10, 2007, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s August 1, 2007 Motion to Compel

and set a deadline of September 25, 2007, by which individual Defendants, Chee Choon Cheah and Lee

A. Johnson were to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and document requests.1

 Plaintiffs subsequently filed on October 1, 2007, a Supplemental Document [Doc. No. 93] stating that Defendants

Cheah and Johnson’s failure to comply with the deadline of September 25, 2007, set by the Court. In

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 100 Filed 11/02/07 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

27

28

2 06CV1147

the Supplemental Document, Plaintiffs requested the Court enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(C); 37 (c)(1) and 37(d) against Defendants Cheah and Johnson and also request an award of

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the August 1, 2007 motion to compel,

the reply, and this statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A); 37(c)(1) and 37(d).

Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow entry of default “[w]hen a party against

whom a judgment . . . is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Under Rule 55(b)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes the Court to enter judgment against a defaulting party. 

Upon entry of default, the factual allegations of the complaint that establish the defaulting parties’

liability are accepted as true, except for those regarding damages. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidental,

826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). If the amount of damages is not readily ascertainable, the court

may conduct a hearing or order production of such documents necessary for such a determination. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 55(b). The entry of default under Rule 55(a) must precede the entry of a default judgment

under Rule 55(b). Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998).

A default judgment against fewer than all defendants is appropriate “only upon an express

determination that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Where a complaint makes

claims against several defendants, and one defaults, the court shall enter a default and a formal decree

pro confesso against such defendant, and proceed with the claims and defenses of the other defendants. 

The defaulting defendant merely loses his standing in Court. See Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554

(1872); accord Nielson v. Chang (In re First T.D. & Inv. Inc.), 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001).

Defendants Cheah and Johnson were warned in the September 10, 2007 Order, that failure to

comply with that Order would result in this Court recommending to the district judge that Defendant’s

Cheah and Johnson’s Answers be stricken and default judgments be entered. 

Defendants, Cheah and Johnson’s repeated failure to comply with the rules of discovery or court orders

enforcing such rules and flagrant disregard of those rules and this Court’s orders are evidenced by: 1)

Defendants’ failure to appear at the Case Management Conference on August 1, 2007; and 2) Defendants’ failure to comply with this Court’s Order of September 10, 2007, to respond in any way, or

participate in the instant case. These actions on behalf of Defendants’ Cheah and Johnson manifest the

requisite fault to fully justify this Court’s recommendation that case terminating sanctions be imposed.

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 100 Filed 11/02/07 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

27

28

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\RPA Int'l\06cv1147.RPA.v.Compact.R&R Default.wpd 3 06CV1147

G-K Properties v. Redevelopment Agency of City of San Jose, 577 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1978); Sigliano v.

Mendoza, 642 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1981)(stating that where the drastic sanctions of dismissal or default

are imposed for failure to comply with discovery request, the losing party's noncompliance must be due

to willfulness, fault or bad faith). 

As such, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), the Court hereby recommends entry of default against

defendant’s Cheah and Johnson’s Answers. Plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment against Defendants’ Cheah and Johnson is not appropriate at this time as no damages have been established and there

are claims proceeding against the remaining Defendants. Plaintiffs’ may submit for the Court’s

consideration and review, declarations and supporting documentation for attorneys’ fees and costs

incurred in connection with the August 1, 2007 motion to compel, the reply, and this statement pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A); 37(c)(1) and 37(d).

This report and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Written objections must be filed with the

court and a copy served on all parties by November 12, 2007. The document should be captioned

"Objections to Report and Recommendation." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed by

November 26, 2007. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 100 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 3