Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04425/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04425-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS 

ADMINISTRATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALISTAIR ANDERSON DONALD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-04425-JSW (JCS)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Docket Nos. 187-189, 191-197

I. INTRODUCTION

In this breach of contract action, the Court previously denied without prejudice the 

applications of Plaintiff United States Small Business Administration (“SBA” or “Plaintiff”), in its 

capacity as Receiver for Rocket Ventures II SBIC, L.P. (“Rocket Ventures”), for default judgment 

against Defendants Alistair Anderson Donald (“Donald”), Luca Casiraghi (“Casiraghi”), Fred 

Cucchi (“Cucchi”), Tyna Development c/o Fiderservice SA (“Tyna”), Alberto Gandini 

(“Gandini”), David Mather (“Mather”), Rijete PTY, Ltd. c/o Brian Wilson (“Rijete”), ValorLife, 

Hahei, Ltd. c/o Allan Cockell (“Hahei”), and Christopher Stainton (“Stainton”) (collectively,

“Defaulting Defendants”). Plaintiff now brings renewed applications for default judgment against 

the same defendants (“the Motions”), which were referred to the undersigned for a Report and 

Recommendation. A hearing on the Motions was held on Friday, December 5, 2014 at 9:30 am. 

Plaintiff filed additional materials in support of the Motion on December 16, 2014 and on January 

16, 2015. For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that the Court GRANT all of the 

Motions. 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 29
2

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

Northern District of California

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Amended Complaint1

Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint in this action alleging breach of contract claims against 

Rocket Ventures II, L.P. (“RVII”), Rocket Ventures II CEO Fund, L.P. (“CEO Fund”), and 

Rocket Ventures SBIC Partners, LLC (“SBIC Partners”) on September 30, 2010. Complaint, ¶¶ 

30-47. On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Docket No. 29. In 

the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that RVII and CEO Fund are comprised of “Class B Limited Partners.” 

FAC, ¶ 7. According to Plaintiff, the Defaulting Defendants are Class B Limited Partners of 

RVII, CEO Fund, or both. Id. at ¶¶ 15, 24-29, 32, 42-43, 47.

Plaintiff alleges that it is authorized by statute to license Small Business Investment 

Companies (“SBICs”) to provide capital to qualified small business concerns. Id. at ¶ 50. Plaintiff 

states that the statute authorizes it to prescribe regulations governing operations of the SBICs, 

which it has exercised by promulgating the regulations reported in Part 107 of Title 13 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 687(c)). Plaintiff alleges that it is pursuing and 

preserving all of Rocket Ventures‟ claims pursuant to a Consent Order of Receivership in the 

“Receivership Action”2and consistent with the governing statutes and regulations. Id. at ¶ 51, Ex. 

A.

Plaintiff alleges the factual background as follows. Rocket Ventures was formed for the 

purpose of operating as a venture capital fund licensed as a SBIC. Id. at ¶ 52. Rocket Ventures 

held U.S. Small Business Administration Small Business Investment Company License No. 0979-

0435 at all relevant times. Id. SBIC Partners was Rocket Ventures‟ managing general partner. Id. 

at ¶ 53. SBIC Partners had exclusive control of Rocket Ventures‟ management and operations, 

within the limitations of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. RVII and CEO Fund were 

Rocket Ventures‟ private limited partners. Id. at ¶ 54.

 

1

The undersigned provided a detailed summary of the allegations in the First Amended Complaint 

in Docket No. 158. For the convenience of the reader, that summary has been incorporated here 

verbatim.

2

This refers to related proceedings found at United States of America v. Rocket Ventures II SBIC, 

L.P., C-08-02240 JSW.

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 29
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

SBIC Partners, RVII, and CEO Fund each entered into the Rocket Ventures Limited 

Partnership Agreement (“Partnership Agreement”) in late 2000. Id. at ¶ 55, Ex. B. Under the 

terms of the Partnership Agreement: (1) SBIC Partners agreed to be general partner of Rocket 

Ventures, acknowledged and agreed to be bound by the terms of the agreement, and agreed to a 

capital commitment of $100,000; (2) RVII agreed to be a limited partner of Rocket Ventures, 

acknowledged and agreed to be bound by the terms of the agreement, and agreed to a capital 

commitment of $25,730,900; and (3) CEO Fund agreed to be a limited partner of Rocket 

Ventures, acknowledged and agreed to be bound by the terms of the agreement, and agreed to a 

capital commitment of $443,500. Id. at ¶¶ 56-58. RVII and CEO Fund are “Class A Limited 

Partners.” Id. at ¶ 64 n.2.

Rocket Ventures was structured as a “drop down” SBIC fund. Id. at ¶ 59. This means that 

Rocket Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund, were to raise capital from their investors 

(limited partners), and in turn drop down some or all of the capital raised into the SBIC Fund. Id. 

A Capital Certificate submitted to the SBA and certified by Rocket Ventures‟ then-management 

identified the individuals and entities that invested in Rocket Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and 

CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 60. These individuals and entities are known as “Class B Limited Partners.” 

Id.

Article 5 of the Partnership Agreement governs “Partners‟ Capital Contributions.” Id. at ¶ 

61, Ex. B. Pursuant to the agreement, “[a]ll capital contributions to the Partnership by [the General 

Partner and Private Limited Partners] must be in cash, except as provided in this agreement and 

approved by the SBA.” Id. at ¶¶ 62, 63 (quoting Partnership Agreement §§ 5.02(a), 5.04). The 

Partnership Agreement further provides that “[i]f at any time the Class A Limited Partner fails to 

make a Capital Contribution as required by this Agreement, then the Class B Limited Partners 

shall contribute to the capital of the Partnership in cash in an amount equal to the Class A Limited 

Partner‟s Capital Contribution then in default, with each such Class B Limited Partner being 

required to contribute its Proportionate Share of the Capital Contribution then in default, provided, 

however, that the obligation of each Class B Limited Partner to contribute to the capital of the 

Partnership shall be several, and not joint, and in no event shall any Class B Limited Partner be 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 29
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

required to contribute to the Partnership in an amount greater than the then unpaid amount that 

such Class B Limited Partner has agreed to contribute to the capital of the Class A Limited 

Partner.” Id. at ¶ 64 (quoting Partnership Agreement § 5.02(c)). Pursuant to the Capital Certificate, 

former management was aware that all Class B Limited Partners were required to execute the 

Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶ 65.

Rocket Ventures‟ books and records reflect that RVII failed to make its required capital 

commitment. Id. at ¶¶ 66, 79. As a result, RVII owes a balance of $9,690,144, plus recoverable 

interest, the amount of its unfunded capital commitment. Id. at ¶¶ 66, 80. Rocket Ventures‟ books 

and records reflect that CEO Fund failed to make its required capital commitment. Id. at ¶¶ 67, 

85. As a result, [CEO Fund] owes a balance of $167,640, plus recoverable interest, the amount of 

its unfunded capital commitment. Id. at ¶¶ 67, 86. The Partnership Agreement provides that, 

where the partnership is liquidated, the general and limited partners must make any unfunded 

capital commitments if the assets of the partnership are insufficient to repay the partnership 

obligations owed to the SBA. Id. at ¶ 69 (citing Partnership Agreement § 5.06). “The Partnership 

is entitled to enforce the obligations of each Partner to make contributions to capital specified in 

[the Partnership Agreement]. The Partnership has all rights and remedies available at law or equity 

if any such contribution is not so made.” Id. at ¶ 70 (quoting Partnership Agreement § 5.07(a)). 

The Partnership Agreement also provides that the general partner may commence legal 

proceedings against any defaulting partner to collect due and unpaid capital commitments, 

including interest and attorneys‟ fees. Id. at ¶ 71 (citing Partnership Agreement § 5.07(a)(ii)(D)).

Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from the Class A 

Limited Partners, and, not receiving payment, issued default notices. Id. at ¶¶ 72-73, Ex. C. Only 

RVII made any payment in response to the default notice, and even after payment the shortfall 

listed above remained. Id. at ¶ 66, 72. On September 2, 2010, the court in the receivership action 

entered an order authorizing Plaintiff to commence this action. Id. at ¶ 75, Ex. D.

Plaintiff alleges twelve breach of contract causes of action that are relevant to the present 

Motions, as follows:

(1) Breach of Contract Against Donald, Count 1: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 29
5

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

Northern District of California

reflect that Donald executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in RVII in or 

around May 2000. Id. at ¶ 193. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, Donald 

executed the Limited Partnership Agreement of RVII. Id. at ¶ 194. Further, the books and records 

reflect that Donald executed a Consent of Limited Partners of Rocket Ventures II, L.P. 

(“Consent”) on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 195. In the Consent, Donald consented to 

becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of Rocket Ventures. Id. The Partnership 

Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its present form, was submitted to 

Donald and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 196.

Plaintiff and Rocket Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, 

except where prevented or excused by Donald‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 197. Pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement, Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from Rocket 

Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 198. Even so, RVII and CEO Fund failed 

to make payment in full. Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited Partners, 

including Donald, are each liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital commitment 

in accordance with section 5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 15, 199.

On October 21, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded 

Donald pay the full amount of his remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $62,500, by

November 30, 2011. Id. at ¶ 200. Donald did not do so. Id. On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff 

notified Donald that he was in default and gave him three business days from the date of that 

notice to make payment in full. Id. at ¶ 201. He did not do so. Id. As a result, Donald breached the 

Partnership Agreement and is liable for his remaining share of the unfunded capital commitment, 

$62,500, plus interest and attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 202-205.

(2) Breach of Contract Against Donald, Count 2: The allegations against Donald in the 

second count for breach of contract are similar to those in the first count. The allegations only 

differ in that they are predicated on Donald‟s Class B Limited Partnership in CEO Fund, as 

opposed to RVII. Id. at ¶¶ 42, 543-545. In this count, Plaintiff seeks to recover Donald‟s unfunded 

capital commitment to CEO Fund, $3,840, plus interest, attorneys‟ fees, and costs. Id. at ¶¶ 553-

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 5 of 29
6

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

Northern District of California

555.

(3) Breach of Contract Against Cucchi: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records reflect that 

Cucchi executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in RVII in or around 

May 2000. Id. at ¶ 319. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, Cucchi executed 

the Limited Partnership Agreement of RVII. Id. at ¶ 320. Further, the books and records reflect 

that Cucchi executed the Consent on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 321. In the Consent, 

Cucchi consented to becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of Rocket Ventures. 

Id. The Partnership Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its present form, was 

submitted to Cucchi and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 322.

Plaintiff and Rocket Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, 

except where prevented or excused by Cucchi‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 323. Pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement, Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from Rocket 

Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 324. Even so, RVII and CEO Fund failed 

to make payment in full. Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited Partners, 

including Cucchi, are each liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital commitment 

in accordance with section 5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 24, 325.

On June 26, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded 

Cucchi pay the full amount of his remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $98,360, by 

August 31, 2011. Id. at ¶ 326. Cucchi did not do so. Id. On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff notified 

Cucchi that he was in default and gave him three business days from the date of that notice to 

make payment in full. Id. at ¶ 327. He did not do so. Id. As a result, Cucchi breached the 

Partnership Agreement and is liable for his remaining share of the unfunded capital commitment, 

now $75,000, plus interest and attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 328-331.

(4) Breach of Contract Against ValorLife: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records reflect that 

ValorLife executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in RVII in or around 

May 2000. Id. at ¶ 333. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, ValorLife 

executed the Limited Partnership Agreement of RVII. Id. at ¶ 334. Further, the books and records 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 6 of 29
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reflect that ValorLife executed the Consent on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 335. In the 

Consent, ValorLife consented to becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of 

Rocket Ventures. Id. The Partnership Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its 

present form, was submitted to ValorLife and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 336.

Plaintiff and Rocket Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, 

except where prevented or excused by ValorLife‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 337. Pursuant to the 

Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from 

Rocket Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 338. Even so, RVII and CEO 

Fund failed to make payment in full. Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited 

Partners, including ValorLife, are each liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital 

commitment in accordance with section 5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 339.

On June 26, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded 

ValorLife pay the full amount of his remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $445,519.50, 

by August 31, 2011. Id. at ¶ 340. ValorLife did not do so. Id. On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff 

notified ValorLife that it was in default and gave it three business days from the date of that notice 

to make payment in full. Id. at ¶ 341. ValorLife did not do so. Id. As a result, ValorLife breached 

the Partnership Agreement and is liable for its remaining share of the unfunded capital 

commitment, now $339,800, plus interest and attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the 

Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 342-346.

(5) Breach of Contract Against Gandini: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records reflect that 

Gandini executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in RVII in or around 

May 2000. Id. at ¶ 347. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, Gandini 

executed the Limited Partnership Agreement of RVII. Id. at ¶ 348. Further, the books and records 

reflect that Gandini executed the Consent on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 349. In the 

Consent, Gandini consented to becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of Rocket 

Ventures. Id. The Partnership Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its present 

form, was submitted to Gandini and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 350. Plaintiff and Rocket 

Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, except where prevented or 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 7 of 29
8

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

Northern District of California

excused by Gandini‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 351. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff 

demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from Rocket Ventures‟ limited partners, 

RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 352. Even so, RVII and CEO Fund failed to make payment in full. 

Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited Partners, including Gandini, are each 

liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital commitment in accordance with section 

5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 353.

On June 26, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded 

Gandini pay the full amount of his remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $148,511.50, by 

August 31, 2011. Id. at ¶ 354. Gandini did not do so. Id. On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff 

notified Gandini that he was in default and gave him three business days from the date of that 

notice to make payment in full. Id. at ¶ 355. He did not do so. Id. As a result, Gandini breached 

the Partnership Agreement and is liable for his remaining share of the unfunded capital 

commitment, $148,511, plus interest and attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the 

Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 356-359.

(6) Breach of Contract Against Rijete, Count 1: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records 

reflect that Rijete executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in RVII in or 

around May 2000. Id. at ¶ 361. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, Rijete 

executed the Limited Partnership Agreement of RVII. Id. at ¶ 362. Further, the books and records 

reflect that Rijete executed the Consent on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 363. In the Consent, 

Rijete consented to becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of Rocket Ventures. 

Id. The Partnership Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its present form, was 

submitted to Rijete and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 364.

Plaintiff and Rocket Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, 

except where prevented or excused by Rijete‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 365. Pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement, Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from Rocket 

Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 366. Even so, RVII and CEO Fund failed 

to make payment in full. Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited Partners, 

including Rijete, are each liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital commitment 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 8 of 29
9

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

Northern District of California

in accordance with section 5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 27, 367.

On June 26, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded 

Rijete pay the full amount of its remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $60,137, by 

August 31, 2011. Id. at ¶ 368. Rijete did not do so. Id. On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff notified 

Rijete that it was in default and gave it three business days from the date of that notice to make 

payment in full. Id. at ¶ 369. It did not do so. Id. As a result, Rijete breached the Partnership 

Agreement and is liable for its remaining share of the unfunded capital commitment, now $38,000, 

plus interest and attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the Partnership Agreement. Id. 

at ¶¶ 370-373.

(7) Breach of Contract Against Rijete, Count 2: The allegations against Rijete in the 

second count for breach of contract are similar to those in the first count. The allegations only 

differ (1) in that they are predicated on Rijete‟s Class B Limited Partnership in CEO Fund, as 

opposed to RVII; and (2) in that the time Rijete was given to respond to the initial demand for 

payment ran from August 26, 2011 to August 30, 2011. Id. at ¶¶ 47, 627-629. In this count, 

Plaintiff seeks to recover Rijete‟s unfunded capital commitment to CEO Fund, $7,515, plus 

interest, attorneys‟ fees, and costs. Id. at ¶¶ 637-639.

(8) Breach of Contract Against Stainton: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records reflect that 

Stainton executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in RVII in or around 

May 2000. Id. at ¶ 375. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, Stainton 

executed the Limited Partnership Agreement of RVII. Id. at ¶ 376. Further, the books and records 

reflect that Stainton executed the Consent on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 377. In the 

Consent, Stainton consented to becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of Rocket 

Ventures. Id. The Partnership Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its present 

form, was submitted to Stainton and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 378.

Plaintiff and Rocket Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, 

except where prevented or excused by Stainton‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 379. Pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement, Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from Rocket 

Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 380. Even so, RVII and CEO Fund failed 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 9 of 29
10

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

Northern District of California

to make payment in full. Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited Partners, 

including Stainton, are each liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital 

commitment in accordance with section 5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 28, 381.

On June 26, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded 

Stainton pay the full amount of his remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $30,000, by 

August 31, 2011. Id. at ¶ 382. Stainton did not do so. Id. On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff notified 

Stainton that he was in default and gave him three business days from the date of that notice to 

make payment in full. Id. at ¶ 383. He did not do so. Id. As a result, Stainton breached the 

Partnership Agreement and is liable for his remaining share of the unfunded capital commitment, 

now $25,000, plus interest and attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 384-387.

(9) Breach of Contract Against Tyna: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records reflect that 

Tyna executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in RVII in or around May 

2000. Id. at ¶ 389. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, Tyna executed the 

Limited Partnership Agreement of RVII. Id. at ¶ 390. Further, the books and records reflect that 

Tyna executed the Consent on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 391. In the Consent, Tyna 

consented to becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of Rocket Ventures. Id. The 

Partnership Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its present form, was 

submitted to Tyna and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 392.

Plaintiff and Rocket Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, 

except where prevented or excused by Tyna‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 393. Pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement, Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from Rocket 

Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 394. Even so, RVII and CEO Fund failed 

to make payment in full. Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited Partners, 

including Tyna, are each liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital commitment 

in accordance with section 5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 29, 395.

On June 26, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded Tyna 

pay the full amount of his remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $150,085, by August 31, 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 10 of 29
11

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

Northern District of California

2011. Id. at ¶ 396. Tyna did not do so. Id. On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff notified Tyna that it

was in default and gave it three business days from the date of that notice to make payment in full. 

Id. at ¶ 397. It did not do so. Id. As a result, Tyna breached the Partnership Agreement and is 

liable for its remaining share of the unfunded capital commitment, now $125,000, plus interest and 

attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 398-401.

(10) Breach of Contract Against Hahei: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records reflect that 

Hahei executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in RVII in or around May 

2000. Id. at ¶ 431. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, Hahei executed the 

Limited Partnership Agreement of RVII. Id. at ¶ 432. Further, the books and records reflect that 

Donald executed the Consent on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 433. In the Consent, Hahei 

consented to becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of Rocket Ventures. Id. The 

Partnership Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its present form, was 

submitted to Hahei and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 434.

Plaintiff and Rocket Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, 

except where prevented or excused by Hahei‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 435. Pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement, Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from Rocket 

Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 436. Even so, RVII and CEO Fund failed 

to make payment in full. Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited Partners, 

including Hahei, are each liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital commitment

in accordance with section 5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 437.

On June 26, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded 

Hahei pay the full amount of his remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $300,000, by 

August 31, 2011. Id. at ¶ 438. Hahei did not do so. Id. On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff notified 

Hahei that it was in default and gave it three business days from the date of that notice to make 

payment in full. Id. at ¶ 439. Hahei did not do so. Id. As a result, Hahei breached the Partnership 

Agreement and is liable for its remaining share of the unfunded capital commitment, $300,000, 

plus interest and attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the Partnership Agreement. Id.

at ¶¶ 440-443.

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 11 of 29
12

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

Northern District of California

(11) Breach of Contract Against Casiraghi: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records reflect that 

Casiraghi executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in RVII in or around 

May2000. Id. at ¶ 529. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, Casiraghi 

executed the Limited Partnership Agreement of RVII. Id. at ¶ 530. Further, the books and records 

reflect that Casiraghi executed the Consent on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 531. In the 

Consent, Casiraghi consented to becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of 

Rocket Ventures. Id. The Partnership Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its 

present form, was submitted to Casiraghi and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 532.

Plaintiff and Rocket Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, 

except where prevented or excused by Casiraghi‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 533. Pursuant to the 

Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from 

Rocket Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 534. Even so, RVII and CEO 

Fund failed to make payment in full. Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited 

Partners, including Casiraghi, are each liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital 

commitment in accordance with section 5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 535.

On June 26, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded 

Casiraghi pay the full amount of his remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $150,000, by 

August 31, 2011. Id. at ¶ 536. Casiraghi did not do so. Id. On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff 

notified Casiraghi that he was in default and gave him three business days from the date of that 

notice to make payment in full. Id. at ¶ 537. He did not do so. Id. As a result, Casiraghi breached 

the Partnership Agreement and is liable for his remaining share of the unfunded capital 

commitment, $150,000, plus interest and attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the 

Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 538-541.

(12) Breach of Contract Against Mather: Rocket Ventures‟ books and records reflect that 

Mather executed a Subscription Agreement and became a limited partner in CEO Fund in or 

around May 2000. Id. at ¶ 571. The books and records also reflect that, around that time, Mather 

executed the Limited Partnership Agreement of CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 572. Further, the books and 

records reflect that Mather executed a Consent of Limited Partners of Rocket Ventures II CEO 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 12 of 29
13

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

Northern District of California

Fund, L.P. (“Consent”) on or around April 30, 2001. Id. at ¶ 573. In the Consent, Mather 

consented to becoming a Conditional Class B Private Limited Partner of Rocket Ventures. Id. The 

Partnership Agreement, in a form substantially similar or identical to its present form, was 

submitted to Mather and referenced in the Consent. Id. at ¶ 574.

Plaintiff and Rocket Ventures performed as required under the Partnership Agreement, 

except where prevented or excused by Mather‟s conduct. Id. at ¶ 575. Pursuant to the Partnership 

Agreement, Plaintiff demanded payment of the unfunded capital commitment from Rocket 

Ventures‟ limited partners, RVII and CEO Fund. Id. at ¶ 576. Even so, RVII and CEO Fund failed 

to make payment in full. Id. As a result of this failure, the individual Class B Limited Partners, 

including Mather, are each liable for their proportionate share of the unfunded capital commitment 

in accordance with section 5.02(c) of the Partnership Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 43, 577.

On October 21, 2011, in accordance with the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff demanded 

Mather pay the full amount of his remaining unfunded capital commitment, then $15,000, by 

November 30, 2011. Id. at ¶ 578. Mather did not do so. Id. On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff 

notified Mather that he was in default and gave him three business days from the date of that 

notice to make payment in full. Id. at ¶ 579. He did not do so. Id. As a result, Mather breached the 

Partnership Agreement and is liable for his remaining share of the unfunded capital commitment, 

$15,000, plus interest and attorneys‟ fees and costs recoverable pursuant to the partnership 

agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 580-583.

B. Dismissal of Non-Defaulting Defendants

The non-defaulting Class B Limited Partners were dismissed in a series of stipulated 

dismissals. See Docket Nos. 77, 86, 147, 166, 167 and 169. On July 21, 2014, the Court entered 

Judgment against the Class A partners pursuant to stipulation of the parties in the amount of 

$7,780,241.49, plus post-judgment interest that continues to accrue at prime rate plus 4%. Dkt. 

No. 186 (“Class A partner Judgment”). On July 25, 2014, the Court dismissed the three remaining 

defendants (RVII, CEO Fund and SBIC Partners) pursuant to a stipulation of the parties that all 

claims against these defendants had been settled and resolved. Docket No. 200.

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 13 of 29
14

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

Northern District of California

C. Renewed Motions for Default Judgment

1. Donald

The Clerk entered default as to Donald on August 23, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Entry of Default Judgment Against Alistair Anderson Donald (“Donald Motion”) at 2 (citing Dkt. 

No. 104). Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to judgment against Donald on its two counts of 

breach of contract, which are based on Donald‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to 

make certain capital contributions to RVII and to CEO Fund.3 Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1)

combined unpaid principal in the amount of $66,340; 2) prejudgment interest in the combined 

amount of $12,625.33; 3) post-judgment interest “that continues to accrue at 4% plus prime on 

the outstanding amount pursuant to the limited partnership agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in 

an unspecified amount. 4

Plaintiff submits two declarations in support of its motion. Plaintiff‟s attorney, Melissa S. 

Lor (“Lor”), declares that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against Donald on August 

20, 2012. Declaration of Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment 

Against Alistair Anderson Donald, ¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 95). Lor declares that default was entered 

three days later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 25, 2014, the Donald Motion was served 

on Donald in “c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. and /or c/o Gordon C. Atkinson, 

101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” Id. at ¶ 6. Lor declares that 

Donald is not a minor or incompetent person and the Service Members Civil Relief Act does not

apply. Id. at ¶ 8.

Second, Richard Moser (“Moser”) submits a declaration based on his work, from 

September 2008 to August 2010, at Phoenix Management, Plaintiff‟s Principal Agent, and his 

review of Rocket Ventures‟ business books and records. Declaration of Richard Moser in Support 

of Renewed Application for Default Judgment By Court Against Alistair Anderson Donald, ¶¶ 1-

 

3 Although Plaintiff references only the first count in discussing the substantive merits of its 

claims against Donald, Plaintiff seeks an award of damages on both of these counts. See Donald 

Motion at 3-4, 7. 

4 At oral argument, Plaintiff stipulated that it does not intend to seek an award of attorneys‟ fees 

against any of the defendants who are the subject of this Motion.

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 14 of 29
15

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

Northern District of California

3. Moser provides a spreadsheet containing the principal amount in default by each Defendant on 

each count, the date of that default, the interest rate, the interest that accrued on the principal 

amount in default up to July 15, 2014, and the total amount due including interest as of July 15, 

2014 (calculated using a rate of 7.25%, that is, 4% plus prime (3.25%) interest rate). Id. at ¶¶ 4-6, 

Ex. A. Moser declares that Donald was in default for the amount of $78,965.33 in principal and 

interest as of July 15, 2014, not including attorneys‟ fees or costs. Id. at ¶ 6.

Finally, following the Motion hearing, Plaintiff provided an updated calculation reflecting 

the additional post-judgment interest that accrued between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014, 

giving rise to a total amount due as of December 15, 2015 of $80,969.35. See Supplemental Brief 

in Support of Renewed Applications for Default Judgment by Court Against Defendants: 1) Luca 

Casiraghi; 2) Fred Cuchi; 3) Alistair Anderson Donald; 4) Alberto Gandini; 5) Hahei, Ltd.; 6) 

Rijete Pty, Ltd; 7) Christopher Stainton; 8) Tyna Development; 9) Valorlife; and 10) David 

Mather (“Supplemental Brief”), Ex. A (“Updated Spreadsheet”). 

2. Cucchi

The Clerk entered default as to Cucchi on August 23, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Entry of Default Judgment Against Fred Cucchi (“Cucchi Motion”) at 2 (citing Dkt. No. 103). 

Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to judgment against Cucchi on its breach of contract claim based 

on Cucchi‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to make certain capital contributions to 

RVII. Motion at 3. Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1) $75,000 for the unpaid principal; 2) 

prejudgment interest in the amount of $15,632.81; 3) post-judgment interest “that continues to 

accrue at 4% plus prime on the outstanding amount pursuant to the limited partnership 

agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in an unspecified amount.

Plaintiff submits declarations from Lor and Moser in support of its motion. Lor declares 

that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against Cucchi on August 20, 2012. Declaration 

of Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment Against Fred Cucchi, 

¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 96). Lor declares that default was entered three days later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor 

declares that default was entered three days later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 25, 

2014, the Cucchi Motion was served on Cucchi in “c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 15 of 29
16

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

Northern District of California

and /or c/o Gordon C. Atkinson, 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” 

Id. at ¶ 6. Lor declares that Cucchi is not a minor or incompetent person and the Service Members 

Civil Relief Act does not apply. Id. at ¶ 8.

Moser submits a declaration that is substantially the same as the one described above, with 

an identical Exhibit A. Moser Declaration in Support of Renewed Application for Default 

Judgment by Court Against Defendant Fred Cucchi, ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A. Moser declares that Cucchi 

was in default for the amount of $90,632.81 as of July 15, 2014, not including attorneys‟ fees or 

costs. Id. at ¶ 6.

Finally, following the Motion hearing, Plaintiff provided an updated calculation reflecting 

the additional post-judgment interest that accrued between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014, 

giving rise to a total amount due as of December 15, 2014 of $92,898.44. See Supplemental 

Brief, Ex. A (Updated Spreadsheet). 

3. ValorLife

The Clerk entered default as to ValorLife on August 23, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant ValorLife (“ValorLife Motion”) at 2 (citing Dkt. 

No. 103). Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to judgment against ValorLife on its breach of contract 

claim based on ValorLife‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to make certain capital 

contributions to RVII. Motion at 3. Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1) $339,800.00 for the unpaid 

principal; 2) prejudgment interest in the amount of $70,827.06; 3) post-judgment interest “that 

continues to accrue at 4% plus prime on the outstanding amount pursuant to the limited 

partnership agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in an unspecified amount. 

Plaintiff submits declarations from Lor and Moser in support of its motion. Lor declares 

that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against ValorLife on August 17, 2012. Declaration 

of Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment By Court Against 

Defendant ValorLife, ¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 94). Lor declares that default was entered six days later. 

Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 25, 2014, the ValorLife Motion was served on ValorLife 

in “c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. and /or c/o Gordon C. Atkinson, 101 

California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” Id. at ¶ 6. Lor declares that 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 16 of 29
17

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

Northern District of California

ValorLife is not a minor or incompetent person and the Service Members Civil Relief Act does 

not apply. Id. at ¶ 8.

Moser submits a declaration that is substantially the same as the one described above, with 

an identical Exhibit A. Declaration of Richard Moser in Support of Renewed Application for 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant ValorLife, ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A. Moser declares that 

ValorLife was in default for the amount of $410,627.06 as of July 15, 2014, not including 

attorneys‟ fees or costs. Id. at ¶ 6.

Finally, following the Motion hearing, Plaintiff provided an updated calculation reflecting 

the additional post-judgment interest that accrued between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014, 

giving rise to a total amount due as of December 15, 2014 of $420,891.84. See Supplemental 

Brief, Ex. A (Updated Spreadsheet). 

4. Gandini

The Clerk entered default as to Gandini on August 23, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Alberto Gandini (“Gandini Motion”) at 2 (citing 

Dkt. No. 103). Plaintiff asserts it is entitled to judgment against Gandini on its breach of contract 

claim based on Gandini‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to make certain capital 

contributions to RVII. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1) $148,511.00 for the unpaid 

principal; 2) prejudgment interest in the amount of $30,955.26; 3) post-judgment interest “that 

continues to accrue at 4% plus prime on the outstanding amount pursuant to the limited 

partnership agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in an unspecified amount.

Plaintiff submits declarations from Lor and Moser in support of its motion. Lor declares 

that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against Gandini on August 20, 2012. Declaration 

of Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment By Court Against 

Defendant Alberto Gandini, ¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 97). Lor declares that default was entered three 

days later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 25, 2014, the Gandini Motion was served on 

Gandini in “c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. and /or c/o Gordon C. Atkinson, 101 

California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” Id. at ¶ 6. Lor declares that Gandini 

is not a minor or incompetent person and the Service Members Civil Relief Act does not apply. Id. 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 17 of 29
18

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

Northern District of California

at ¶ 8.

Moser submits a declaration that is substantially the same as the one described above, with 

an identical Exhibit A. Declaration of Richard Moser in Support of Entry of Renewed Application 

for Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Alberto Gandini, ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A. Moser declares 

that Gandini was in default for the amount of $179,466.26 as of July 15, 2014, not including 

attorneys‟ fees or costs. Id. at ¶ 6.

Finally, following the Motion hearing, Plaintiff provided an updated calculation reflecting 

the additional post-judgment interest that accrued between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014, 

giving rise to a total amount due as of December 15, 2014 of $183,952.53. See Supplemental 

Brief, Ex. A (Updated Spreadsheet). 

5. Rijete

The Clerk entered default as to Rijete on August 23, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Rijete PTY, Ltd. (“Rijete Motion”) at 2 (citing 

Dkt. No. 104). Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to judgment on its two counts of breach of 

contract, which are based on Rijete‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to make certain 

capital contributions to RVII and to CEO Fund.5 Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1) combined unpaid 

principal in the amount of $45,515.00; 2) prejudgment interest in the combined amount of 

$9,487.04; 3) post-judgment interest “that continues to accrue at 4% plus prime on the 

outstanding amount pursuant to the limited partnership agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in an 

unspecified amount.

Plaintiff submits declarations from Lor and Moser in support of its motion. Lor declares 

that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against Rijete on August 20, 2012. Declaration of 

Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment By Court Against 

Defendant Rijete PTY, Ltd., ¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 99). Lor declares that default was entered three 

days later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 25, 2014, the Rijete Motion was served on 

 

5 Although Plaintiff references only the first count in discussing the substantive merits of its 

claims against Rijete, Plaintiff seeks an award of damages on both of these counts. See Rijete 

Motion at 3-4, 7. 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 18 of 29
19

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

Northern District of California

Rijete in “c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. and /or c/o Gordon C. Atkinson, 101 

California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” Id. at ¶ 6. Lor declares that Rijete is 

not a minor or incompetent person and the Service Members Civil Relief Act does not apply. Id. at 

¶ 8.

Moser submits a declaration that is substantially the same as the one described above, with 

an identical Exhibit A. Declaration of Richard Moser in Support of Renewed Application for 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Rijete PTY, Ltd., ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A. Moser declares 

that Rijete was in default for the amount of $55,002.04, as of July 15, 2014, not including 

attorneys‟ fees or costs. Id. at ¶ 6.

Finally, following the Motion hearing, Plaintiff provided an updated calculation reflecting 

the additional post-judgment interest that accrued between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014, 

giving rise to a total amount due as of December 15, 2014 of $56,376.96. See Supplemental 

Brief, Ex. A (Updated Spreadsheet). 

6. Stainton

The Clerk entered default as to Stainton on December 21, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Christopher Stainton (“Stainton Motion”) at 2 

(citing Dkt. No. 123). Plaintiff asserts it is entitled to judgment against Stainton on its breach of 

contract claim based on Stainton‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to make certain 

capital contributions to RVII. Id. at 3-4. In the Stainton Motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1) 

$30,000 for the unpaid principal; 2) prejudgment interest in the amount of $6,253.13; 3) postjudgment interest “that continues to accrue at 4% plus prime on the outstanding amount pursuant 

to the limited partnership agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in an unspecified amount. 

Plaintiff submits declarations from Lor and Moser in support of its motion. Lor declares 

that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against Stainton on December 19, 2012. 

Declaration of Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment By Court 

Against Defendant Christopher Stainton, ¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 119). Lor declares that default was 

entered two days later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 24, 2014, the Stainton Motion was 

served on Stainton in “c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. and /or c/o Gordon C. 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 19 of 29
20

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

Northern District of California

Atkinson, 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” Id. at ¶ 6. Lor 

declares that Stainton is not a minor or incompetent person and the Service Members Civil Relief 

Act does not apply. Id. at ¶ 8.

Moser submits a declaration that is substantially the same as the one described above, with 

an identical Exhibit A. Declaration of Richard Moser in Support of Renewed Application for 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Christopher Stainton, ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A. Moser 

declares that Stainton was in default for the amount of $36,253.13 as of July 15, 2014, not 

including attorneys‟ fees or costs. Id. at ¶ 6.

Following the motion hearing, Plaintiff stipulated in the Supplemental Brief that the 

amount of unpaid principal requested in the motion ($30,000) as to Stainton was a typographical 

error and that in fact, Stainton owes $25,000 in unpaid principal. Supplemental Brief at 2-3. With 

this correction, the Updated Spreadsheet reflects that as of December 15, 2014, the outstanding 

amount due as to Stainton was $30,966.15. See Supplemental Brief, Ex. A (Updated 

Spreadsheet). 

7. Tyna

The Clerk entered default as to Tyna on August 23, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Tyna Development (“Tyna Motion”) at 2 (citing 

Dkt. No. 103). Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to judgment against Tyna on its breach of contract 

claim based on Tyna‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to make certain capital 

contributions to RVII. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1) $125,000.00 for the unpaid 

principal; 2) prejudgment interest in the amount of $26,054.69; 3) post-judgment interest “that 

continues to accrue at 4% plus prime on the outstanding amount pursuant to the limited 

partnership agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in an unspecified amount. 

Plaintiff submits declarations from Lor and Moser in support of its motion. Lor declares 

that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against Tyna on August 20, 2012. Declaration of 

Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment By Court Against 

Defendant Tyna Development, ¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 98). Lor declares that default was entered 

three days later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 25, 2014, the Tyna Motion was served 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 20 of 29
21

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

Northern District of California

on Tyna in “c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. and /or c/o Gordon C. Atkinson, 101 

California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” Id. at ¶ 6. Lor declares that Tyna is 

not a minor or incompetent person and the Service Members Civil Relief Act does not apply. Id. at 

¶ 8.

Moser submits a declaration that is substantially the same as the one described above, with 

an identical Exhibit A. Declaration of Richard Moser in Support of Renewed Application for 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Tyna Development, ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A. Moser declares 

that Tyna was in default for the amount of $151,054.69 as of July 15, 2014, not including 

attorneys‟ fees or costs. Id. at ¶ 6.

Finally, following the Motion hearing, Plaintiff provided an updated calculation reflecting 

the additional post-judgment interest that accrued between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014, 

giving rise to a total amount due as of December 15, 2014 of $154,830.73. See Supplemental 

Brief, Ex. A (Updated Spreadsheet). 

8. Hahei

The Clerk entered default as to Hahei on December 27, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Hahei, Ltd. (“Hahei Motion”) at 2 (citing Dkt. No. 

124). Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to judgment against Hahei on its breach of contract claim 

based on Hahei‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to make certain capital contributions 

to RVII. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1) $300,000.00 for the unpaid principal; 2) 

prejudgment interest in the amount of $62,531.25; 3) post-judgment interest “that continues to 

accrue at 4% plus prime on the outstanding amount pursuant to the limited partnership 

agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in an unspecified amount. 

Plaintiff submits declarations from Lor and Moser in support of its motion. Lor declares 

that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against Hahei on December 19, 2012. Declaration 

of Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment By Court Against 

Defendant Hahei, Ltd., ¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 122). Lor declares that default was entered eight days 

later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 25, 2014, the Hahei Motion was served on Hahei in 

“c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. and /or c/o Gordon C. Atkinson, 101 California 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 21 of 29
22

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

Northern District of California

Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” Id. at ¶ 6. Lor declares that Hahei is not a 

minor or incompetent person and the Service Members Civil Relief Act does not apply. Id. at ¶ 8.

Moser submits a declaration that is substantially the same as the one described above, with 

an identical Exhibit A. Declaration of Richard Moser in Support of Renewed Application for 

Default Judgment By Court Against Hahei, Ltd., ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A. Moser declares that Hahei was in 

default for the amount of $362,531.25 as of July 15, 2014, not including attorneys‟ fees or costs. 

Id. at ¶ 6.

Finally, following the Motion hearing, Plaintiff provided an updated calculation reflecting 

the additional post-judgment interest that accrued between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014, 

giving rise to a total amount due as of December 15, 2014 of $371,593.75. See Supplemental 

Brief, Ex. A (Updated Spreadsheet). 

9. Casiraghi

The Clerk entered default as to Casiraghi on August 23, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant Luca Casiraghi (“Casiraghi Motion”) at 3 (citing 

Dkt. No. 104). Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to judgment against Casiraghi on its breach of 

contract claim based on Casiraghi‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to make certain 

capital contributions to RVII. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1) $150,000.00 for the unpaid 

principal; 2) prejudgment interest in the amount of $31,265.63; 3) post-judgment interest “that 

continues to accrue at 4% plus prime on the outstanding amount pursuant to the limited 

partnership agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in an unspecified amount. 

Plaintiff submits declarations from Lor and Moser in support of its motion. Lor declares 

that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against Casiraghi on August 20, 2012. Declaration 

of Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment By Court Against 

Defendant Luca Casiraghi, ¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 100). Lor declares that default was entered three 

days later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 25, 2014, the Casiraghi Motion was served on 

Casiraghi in “c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. and /or c/o Gordon C. Atkinson, 101 

California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” Id. at ¶ 6. Lor declares that 

Casiraghi is not a minor or incompetent person and the Service Members Civil Relief Act does not 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 22 of 29
23

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

Northern District of California

apply. Id. at ¶ 8.

Moser submits a declaration that is substantially the same as the one described above, with 

an identical Exhibit A. Declaration of Richard Moser in Support of Default Judgment By Court 

Against Defendant Luca Casiraghi, ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A. Moser declares that Casiraghi was in default 

for the amount of $181,265.63 as of July 15, 2014, not including attorneys‟ fees or costs. Id. at ¶ 6.

Finally, following the Motion hearing, Plaintiff provided an updated calculation reflecting 

the additional post-judgment interest that accrued between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014, 

giving rise to a total amount due as of December 15, 2014 of $185,796.88. See Supplemental 

Brief, Ex. A (Updated Spreadsheet). 

10. Mather

The Clerk entered default as to Mather on August 23, 2012. Renewed Application For 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant David Mather (“Mather Motion”) at 2 (citing Dkt. 

No. 103). Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to judgment against Mather on its breach of contract 

claim based on Mather‟s obligation under the Partnership Agreement to make certain capital 

contributions to CEO Fund. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff seeks an award of: 1) $15,000.00 for the unpaid 

principal; 2) prejudgment interest in the amount of $2,854.69; 3) post-judgment interest “that 

continues to accrue at 4% plus prime on the outstanding amount pursuant to the limited 

partnership agreement,” and 4) attorneys‟ fees in an unspecified amount. 

Plaintiff submits declarations from Lor and Moser in support of its motion. Lor declares 

that Plaintiff filed a request for entry of Default against Mather on August 17, 2012. Declaration 

of Melissa S. Lor in Support of Renewed Application for Default Judgment By Court Against 

Defendant David Mather, ¶ 4 (citing Dkt. No. 93). Lor declares that default was entered six days 

later. Id. at ¶ 5. Lor further states that on July 24, 2014, the Mather Motion was served on Mather 

in “c/o Designated Agent Rocket Ventures II, L.P. and /or c/o Gordon C. Atkinson, 101 

California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.” Id. at ¶ 6. Lor declares that Mather 

is not a minor or incompetent person and the Service Members Civil Relief Act does not apply. Id.

at ¶ 8.

Moser submits a declaration that is substantially the same as the one described above, with 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 23 of 29
24

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

Northern District of California

an identical Exhibit A. Declaration of Richard Moser in Support of Renewed Application for 

Default Judgment By Court Against Defendant David Mather, ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A. Moser declares that 

Mather was in default for the amount of $17,854.69 as of July 15, 2014, not including attorneys‟ 

fees or costs. Id. at ¶ 6.

Finally, following the Motion hearing, Plaintiff provided an updated calculation reflecting 

the additional post-judgment interest that accrued between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014, 

giving rise to a total amount due as of December 15, 2014 of $18,307.81. See Supplemental 

Brief, Ex. A (Updated Spreadsheet). 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Entry of Default Judgment

1. Legal Standard

After default has been entered against a party, a district court may grant an application for 

default judgment in its discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).6 The Court may not enter default 

judgment against a minor or incompetent person unless he or she is adequately represented. Id. 

A plaintiff seeking default judgment also must aver that the defendant is not in military service 

entitled to the benefits of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003 (50 App. U.S.C.A. §§ 501 

et seq.). In addition, the court must determine that service of process was adequate, see Bank of 

the West v. RMA Lumber Inc., No. 07-6469 JSW, 2008 WL 2474650, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 

2008), and that the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. In re Tuli, 172 

F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). 

If the court is satisfied that these prerequisites are met, it then considers several factors in 

determining whether to grant default judgment: 

(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 

 

6 As discussed in the previous report and recommendation, see Docket No. 158, under Rule 54(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may decline to enter default judgment where 

claims are still being litigated against other defendants, raising the possibility of inconsistent 

outcomes. As all of the claims against the non-defaulting defendants in this action have now been 

resolved, however, there is no such risk and the Court may proceed to the merits on Plaintiff‟s 

default judgment motions against the Defaulting Defendants.

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 24 of 29
25

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

Northern District of California

dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was due to 

excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471−72 (9th Cir. 1986). In making its decision, the court takes 

all factual allegations in the complaint, except those relating to damages, as true. TeleVideo 

Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917−18 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. 

Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)). 

2. Discussion

a. Prerequisites for Granting Default Judgment 

In its previous report and recommendation, the undersigned found that the FAC was 

properly served on the Defaulting Defendants. Further, Plaintiff has provided declarations by 

Melissa Lor averring that the Defaulting Defendants are not minors, incompetents or serving in the 

military. With respect to subject matter jurisdiction, there is federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff‟s 

claims under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 15 U.S.C. § 687c, and the Consent order 

issued by this Court in Case No. C-08-02240 JSW, appointing Plaintiff as receiver. See U.S. v. 

Franklin National Bank, 512 F.2d 245, 249 (2d Cir. 1975) (federal district court where receiver is 

appointed has ancillary jurisdiction over claims by the receiver). Finally, the Court may exercise 

personal jurisdiction over the Defaulting Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 7547and 28 U.S.C. §

1692,

8 which allow this Court to take exclusive jurisdiction of RVII SBIC‟s assets, wherever 

located, and provide that process may be served in any district in which the defendant maintains 

its principal office or transacts business, or wherever the defendant may be found. See United 

States v. Arizona Fuels Corp., 739 F.2d 455, 460 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Haile v. Henderson Nat’l 

Bank, 657 F.2d 816, 822 (6th Cir. 1981) (“the initial suit which results in the appointment of the 

receiver is the primary action and that any suit which the receiver thereafter brings in the 

appointment court in order to execute his duties is ancillary to the main suit”).

 

7

28 U.S.C. § 754 provides that a receiver appointed in any civil action is “vested with

complete jurisdiction and control of all such property with the right to take possession thereof”

and has the “capacity to sue in any district without ancillary appointment.”

8

28 U.S.C. § 1692, provides that “[i]n proceedings in a district court where a receiver is appointed 

for property, real, personal, or mixed, situated in different districts, process may issue and be 

executed in any such district as if the property lay wholly within one district, but orders affecting 

the property shall be entered of record in each of such districts.”

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 25 of 29
26

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

Northern District of California

b. Eitel Factors

Having found that the prerequisites for entry of default judgment are met, the Court must 

consider the factors set forth in Eitel. The Court concludes these factors also support entry of 

default judgment.

Several factors require minimal analysis. Plaintiff would be prejudiced by denial of default 

judgment because Plaintiff has no other remedy where Defendants have failed to appear. The sum 

of money at stake is significant, but it is warranted under the Partnership Agreement and the facts 

alleged in the FAC. Although the Defaulting Defendants could conceivably dispute material facts 

if they were to appear, they have not appeared and thus have not raised any disputes. There is no 

indication that Defendants‟ default was due to excusable neglect. Finally, while there is a strong 

public policy favoring the resolution of disputes on the merits, that is not possible in this case 

because the Defaulting Defendants have failed to appear.

The Court also finds that the second and third Eitel factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claims 

and the sufficiency of its allegations, support entry of default judgment. In considering the 

sufficiency of the complaint on a motion for default judgment, courts look to the plaintiff‟s

allegations to determine whether they state a claim on which the plaintiff may recover. See 

Kloepping v. Fireman’s Fund, No. C 94-2684 TEH, 1996 WL 75314, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 

1996). The complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and must include “sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to „state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In assessing the 

merits of a complaint, the court may (but is not required to) consider evidence such as affidavits 

submitted by the plaintiff. See TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 

1987). 

Here, as to each Defaulting Defendant Plaintiff has alleged that there was a contractual 

obligation to pay certain unfunded capital commitments by virtue of both the Partnership 

Agreement and the Consent that each Defaulting Defendant is alleged to have executed agreeing 

to be a Class B Limited Partner of either RVII or CEO Fund (or both). Plaintiff alleged facts 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 26 of 29
27

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

Northern District of California

showing that this obligation was breached, identifying the specific amount each Defaulting 

Defendant was required to (but did not) pay under the Partnership Agreement. Finally, Plaintiff 

provided the Partnership Agreement, which sets forth the obligations of the Class B Limited 

Partners. Plaintiff’s claims against the Defaulting Defendants, therefore, are sufficiently alleged 

and appear to have merit.

Based on the foregoing review of the Eitel factors, it is recommended that default 

judgment be entered as to all of the Defaulting Defendants.

B. Remedy

Under Rule 54(c), the scope of relief “must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, 

what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c). Further, a plaintiff seeking default 

judgment “must „prove up‟ the amount of damages that it is claiming.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. 

Castworld Products, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 501 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Here, Plaintiff seeks the unpaid 

capital commitment owed by each Defaulting Defendant and prejudgment interest. As noted 

above, Plaintiff has stipulated that it will not seek an award of attorneys‟ fees against the 

Defaulting Defendants.

1. Unpaid Principal Amounts

The amounts Plaintiff seeks in unpaid commitments for each of the Defaulting Defendants, 

as reflected in the Updated Spreadsheet, match the amounts alleged to be due in the FAC and 

therefore do not exceed in amount what is demanded in the pleadings. In addition, for each 

Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff has provided a declaration by Richard Moser, who is Principal 

Agent to the Receiver and has reviewed the books and records of Rocket Ventures, attesting to the 

amount of the unpaid contribution owed by that Defendant. With respect to Defendant Stainton, 

Plaintiff has provided a revised calculation of outstanding contributions, as noted above, 

correcting an error in the original Moser Declaration as to the amount. This evidence is sufficient 

to establish the amount of the unpaid capital contribution owed by each Defaulting Defendant.

Finally, to the extent the capital contributions owed by the Class B partners are based on the nonpayment of amounts owed by the Class A partners, Plaintiff stipulated in a supplemental brief 

filed January 16, 2015, that “[i]t has always been the Receiver‟s understanding and intention that 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 27 of 29
28

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

Northern District of California

any future recoveries received from the RV II Class B partners and RV CEO Class B partners 

must be credited against the Judgment.” Dkt. No. 207 (“Second Supplemental Brief”) at 3. 

Plaintiff acknowledges that this understanding was not expressly stated in the Settlement 

Agreement with the Class A partners but states that “it may be incorporated in any default 

judgment issued by this Court to ensure against double recoveries.” Id.

9

 Therefore, the amounts 

set forth in the Updated Spreadsheet (Dkt. No. 205, Ex. A), in the first column of the schedule, 

should be awarded in full as to all of the Defaulting Defendants, with the proviso that any amount 

received from the Defaulting Defendants shall be credited against the Judgment against the Class 

A partners, as stipulated by the Receiver.

2. Prejudgment Interest

Plaintiff also seeks prejudgment interest on the unpaid capital contributions owed by the 

Defaulting Defendants. Under the Partnership Agreement, Section 5.07(a)(i), Plaintiff is entitled 

to prejudgment interest on unpaid capital contributions at the prime rate plus 4%, calculated from 

the original due date until the payment is received. See FAC, Ex. B (Partnership Agreement). The 

Updated Spreadsheet provided by the Receiver lists the starting dates of Plaintiff‟s calculation –

which match the dates alleged in the FAC on which the Defaulting Defendants went into default. 

It also reflects that Plaintiff calculated prejudgment interest using the prime rate plus 4%, that is, 

7.25%, which is consistent with the Partnership Agreement. Therefore, the amounts requested in 

the “Interest” column of the Updated Spreadsheet should be awarded in full. In addition, Plaintiff 

is entitled to post-judgment interest at a rate of prime plus 4% from December 15, 2014 (the end 

date for the interest calculation in the Updated Spreadsheet) until the judgment is satisfied.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that the Court GRANT Plaintiff‟s motions 

for default judgment as to all of the Defaulting Defendants. The proposed judgments provided by 

 

9

In addition, Plaintiff has presented evidence showing that, as a practical matter, the payments it 

has already received from the non-defaulting Class B partners and under the Settlement 

Agreement with the Class A partners falls far short of the full amount owed, making double 

recovery highly unlikely. Id. 

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 28 of 29
29

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff in Dkt. Nos. 205-1 through 205-10 accurately reflect the amounts owed by the Defaulting 

Defendants and are consistent with the recommendation of the undersigned. 

Dated: February 9, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:10-cv-04425-JSW Document 208 Filed 02/09/15 Page 29 of 29