Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01909/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01909-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN BOAT RACING 

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOB RICHARDS, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1909-KJM-KJN

ORDER

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, which was 

filed on January 22, 2015, and is presently set for hearing on February 19, 2015. (ECF No. 13.) 

Defendants failed to file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(c).

After reviewing plaintiff’s briefing in support of the motion, and without expressing any opinion 

concerning its ultimate merits, the court finds that supplemental briefing would be beneficial to 

the court’s resolution of the motion. 

As plaintiff notes, this is a diversity action for breach of contract damages and statutory 

enforcement of dishonored check damages. According to plaintiff, a Washington State non-profit 

corporation, the defendants, who are citizens of California, breached an agreement between 

plaintiff and defendants by failing to pay certain agreed-upon sums due under the agreement, and 

also tendered two checks in purported partial payment of the agreed-upon sums that were 

Case 2:14-cv-01909-KJM-KJN Document 23 Filed 02/12/15 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

subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. The agreement apparently contained a choice-oflaw provision stating that it is to be “governed by and construed in all respects in accordance with 

the laws of Washington State.” (See ECF No. 17 at 29.) 

In its motion for default judgment, plaintiff seeks the following relief: (a) $188,851.00 in 

breach of contract damages; (b) prejudgment interest at a rate of 12% per annum; (c) $600 in 

dishonored check penalties; (d) $10,110.00 in attorneys’ fees; and (e) $576.25 in filing and 

service fees. Plaintiff’s briefing assumes, without any supporting legal analysis, that Washington 

law (as opposed to California and/or federal law), applies to a potential award and computation of 

prejudgment interest, dishonored check penalties, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. Although the 

agreement at issue apparently contains a Washington law choice-of-law provision, several forms 

of relief requested do not appear to be based on the breach of contract claim, but instead on a 

statutory claim related to the dishonored checks. However, plaintiff’s briefing fails to explain 

why a claim related to the dishonored checks arises under Washington law, as opposed to 

California law.1 

Therefore, plaintiff shall provide the court with supplemental briefing, with citation to 

relevant statutes, case law, and/or other authorities, addressing why Washington law applies to 

the potential award and computation of each category of relief requested.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The February 19, 2015 hearing is vacated.

2. No later than March 5, 2015, plaintiff shall file supplemental briefing in support of the 

motion for default judgment, as outlined above.

3. Defendants shall file any opposition to the motion for default judgment, including the 

supplemental briefing, no later than March 19, 2015.

4. Plaintiff may file a reply brief, if any, no later than March 26, 2015.

////

 

1 By way of example, the law of the state where the bank on which the check was drawn is 

located may govern. On the other hand, the law of the state where the check is deposited may 

govern. Plaintiff’s briefing does not address the issue. 

Case 2:14-cv-01909-KJM-KJN Document 23 Filed 02/12/15 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

3

5. Thereafter, the motion will be submitted for decision on the record and written 

briefing, unless the court subsequently determines that oral argument is necessary.

6. Plaintiff shall forthwith serve a copy of this order on defendants at their last-known 

address(es).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2015

 

Case 2:14-cv-01909-KJM-KJN Document 23 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 3