Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147-12/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

- 1 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RPA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD.,

d/b/a NUFURN PTY LTD.; NUFURN,

INC. and DENNIS MICHAEL

KRAWCHUCK, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

ORDER

vs.

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.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the review of the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 100) filed on November 2, 2007 by the United States Magistrate Judge Anthony J.

Battaglia and the Petition for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 106) filed by Plaintiffs RPA

International Pty Ltd., Nurfurn, Inc. and Dennis Michael Krawchuck. 

Background

On May 26, 2006, RPA International Pty Ltd., d/b/a Nufurn Pty Ltd., Nufurn, Inc. 

and Dennis Michael Kdawchuck (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint for patent infringement

under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. (Doc. #1). 

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 110 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 7
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 WQH (AJB)

On September 13, 2006, Defendants Chee Choon Cheah (“Cheah”), Kok Cheong

Soo, Compact International, Inc., Lee Johnson (“Johnson”), PRE Sales, Inc., Eric Segal,

BZ Global Sdn. Bhd., and BZ Global HK Limited filed an Answer to the Complaint. (Doc.

# 15). 

On August 1, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Compel Defendants’ Response to

Plaintiffs’ Written Discovery Requests Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.37” (“Motion to Compel”),

which requested an order requiring defendants Cheah and Johnson to respond to Plaintiffs’

First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Document Requests served on May 18, 2007,

and awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with bringing the

Motion to Compel. (Doc. # 84). 

On September 10, 2007, Magistrate Judge Battaglia issued an Order Granting the

Motion to Compel. (Doc. # 89). The Order provided that Cheah and Johnson “shall

completely respond to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and produce all documents

responsive to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Document Requests on or before September 25, 2007,”

and that “Cheah and Johnson are warned that failure to comply with this order will result in

this Court recommending to the district judge that Defendants’ Cheah and Johnson actions

manifest the requisite fault justifying Defendants’ Cheah and Johnson answer be stricken

and default judgment be entered pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 37(d).” Id. 

On October 1, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a “Statement Regarding Defendants’ Failure to

Comply with the September 10, 2007 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

Regarding Cheah and Johnson,” which “submits that a recommendation should be made to

Judge Hayes that [Cheah and Johnson] be held in default under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(c);

37(c)(1) and 37(d).” (Doc. # 93). Plaintiffs contend that “[a] default judgment against

Cheah and Johnson is appropriate” because “Mr. Cheah and Mr. Johnson are in violation of

the Court’s September 10, 2007 Order requiring their compliance with Nurfurn’s discovery

requests.” Statement, p. 2. Plaintiffs assert that default judgment should be entered against

Cheah and Johnson pursuant to Rules 37(b)(2)(c), (c)(1) and (d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs also move for “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 110 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 7
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 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

incurred in connection with the August 1, 2007 Motion to Compel, the Reply in Support,

and this Statement pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A); 37(c)(1); and 37(d).” Id. 

On November 2, 2007, Magistrate Judge Battaglia issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). The Magistrate Judge determined that “case terminating

sanctions” were appropriate in light of “Cheah and Johnson’s repeated failure to comply

with the rules of discovery or court orders enforcing such rules.” Id. at 2. The Magistrate

Judge determined, however, that default judgment was inappropriate because “no damages

have been established and there are claims proceeding against the remaining Defendants,”

and recommended that this Court enter default against Cheah and Johnson pursuant to Rule

55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. R&R, p. 2-3; see Frow v. De La Vega, 82

U.S. 552, 554 (1872). The Magistrate Judge also stated that “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).” Id. 

The parties did not file objections to the R&R.

On December 14, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Attorneys’ Fees (“Petition for

Fees”). The Petition for Fees seeks attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the Motion to

Compel, the Reply to the Motion to Compel, the Statement Regarding Defendants’ Failure

to Comply and the Reply in Support of Report and Recommendation, totaling $6,175.00. 

Petition for Fees, p. 2. Plaintiffs submitted an itemized list of attorney’s fees, stating fees

of $2,321.25 for the Motion to Compel, $1,392.50 for the Response in Support of Motion

to Compel, $1,156.25 for the Statement Regarding Defendants’ Failure to Comply, and

$1,305.00 for the Reply in Support of Report and Recommendation. Id. Plaintiffs also

submitted the Declaration of Amanda L. Lowerre, who attests that attorney Amanda L.

Lowerre billed 23.65 hours at a rate of $200.00 per hour and attorney Philip T. Petti billed

3.4 hours at a rate of $425.00 per hour for the preparation and filing of the above motions. 

Cheah and Johnson did not file objections to the Petition for Attorneys’ Fees. 

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 110 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 7
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 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

Standard of Review

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of

a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a]

judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district

court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Applicable Law

Two separate provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the

entry of default under different circumstances. See Home Port Rentals v. Ruben, 957 F.2d

126, 133 (4th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to Rule 37, if a party “fails to obey an order to provide

or permit discovery,” the court in which the action is pending may “make such orders in

regard to the failure as are just,” including an order deeming certain facts as established for

purposes of the action, refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose

designated claims, striking pleadings, dismissing the action, rendering a default judgment

against the disobedient party, or holding the disobedient party in contempt. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2). Pursuant to Rule 55, “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative

relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend . . . the clerk shall enter the party’s

default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Local Civil Rule 83.1 also provides for the entry of

default: “[f]ailure of . . . any party to comply with these rules, with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure . . . or with any order of the court may be grounds for imposition by the

court of . . . entry of default.” 

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 110 Filed 01/31/08 Page 4 of 7
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

- 5 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

Rule 54(b) provides that the entry of default judgment may be inappropriate in cases

involving multiple defendants: 

when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final

judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon

an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. . . . [A]ny order

or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all

the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not

terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other

form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment

adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of the parties.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “The true mode of proceeding where a bill makes a joint charge

against several defendants, and one of them makes a default, is simply to enter a default

and a formal decree pro confesso against him, and proceed with the cause upon the answers

of the other defendants. The defaulting defendant has merely lost his standing in court.” 

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). 

A party who prevails on a motion for sanctions under Rule 37 may also be entitled

to attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4), if the court issues an “order compelling

disclosure or discovery,” 

the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party or

deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion . . . to pay the moving party the

reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees,

unless the court finds that the motion was filed without the movant’s first

making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court

action, or that the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was

substantially justified, or that other circumstances make an award of expenses

unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(E), 

[i]n lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall

require the party failing to obey the order . . . to pay the reasonable expenses,

including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the

failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of

expenses unjust. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(E). 

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 110 Filed 01/31/08 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

Ruling of the Court

The Court has reviewed the entire record and concludes that the Magistrate Judge

correctly determined that the imposition of sanctions against Cheah and Johnson for their

failure to comply with the Order Granting the Motion to Compel is appropriate. The Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that default judgment is not

appropriate at this stage of the proceedings because there are claims proceeding against

remaining Defendant Kok Cheong Soo. See Frow, 82 U.S. at 554. Although default

judgment is not appropriate at this time, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge

correctly determined that the entry of default against Cheah and Johnson is an appropriate

sanction given Cheah and Johnson’s disregard of the Order Granting the Motion to

Compel, which contained explicit warning that failure to comply with the Order would

result in a recommendation to this Court that “Cheah and Johnson’s Answers be stricken

and default judgments be entered.” R&R, p. 2. The Court, however, does not adopt

page 3, lines 5-8 of the R&R, which recommends the entry of default pursuant to Rule

55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because Plaintiffs specifically request that

the Court enter default judgment pursuant to Rule 37, Plaintiffs do not assert that Cheah

and Johnson have “failed to defend or otherwise plead” or otherwise request entry of

default judgment pursuant to Rule 55, and the record demonstrates that Rule 55(a) is

inapplicable because Cheah and Johnson have filed numerous pleadings with the Court in

support of their defense. See Answer to the Complaint (Doc. # 15), Motion to Amend/

Correct Answer to Complaint (Doc. # 20), Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs’

Counsel (Doc. # 28), Ex Parte Motion to Strike (Doc. # 30), Motion to Seal Document

(Doc. # 38), Amended Answer to Complaint and Amended Counterclaim (Doc. # 74). The

Court will direct the entry of default against Defendants Cheah and Johnson pursuant to

Rule 37(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 83.1. 

In light of the Magistrate Judge’s Order Granting the Motion to Compel, the Court

concludes that an award of fees incurred in preparing the Motion to Compel, Response in

Support of Motion to Compel and preparing for the related hearing is appropriate under

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 110 Filed 01/31/08 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

Rule 37(a)(4). The Court concludes that an award of fees incurred in preparing the

Statement Regarding Defendants’ Failure to Comply and Reply in Support of Report and

Recommendation is appropriate under Rule 37(b)(2)(E). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 100) in part. The Court directs entry of Defendant Cheah and Johnson’s

DEFAULT pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local

Civil Rule 83.1. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Petition for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. #

106) is GRANTED. Defendants Chee Choon Cheah and Lee Johnson are ordered to pay

the sum of $6,175.00 to Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of this Order. 

DATED: January 31, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 110 Filed 01/31/08 Page 7 of 7