Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00128/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00128-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

MINUTES FORM 90 Initials of Deputy Clerk __jh_______

CIVIL -- GEN 1

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, CA 92501

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. ED CV 08-01256-SGL(JTLx) Date: December 18, 2008 

Title: HARDWOODS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS US, LP -v- WALKER WOOD PRODUCTS,

INC., ET AL.

==========================================================================

=

PRESENT: HONORABLE STEPHEN G. LARSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Jim Holmes None Present

Courtroom Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None present None present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST WALKER WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. AND

WALKER CABINET INDUSTRIES, LLC.

Presently before the Court is plaintiff's ex parte application for entry of default judgment

against some, but not all, the served defendants in this case. Specifically, plaintiff seeks for the

Court to enter judgment for roughly $1.9 million in damages and attorney's fees against defendants

Walker Wood Products, Inc. and Walker Cabinet Industries, LLC. Neither named defendant that is

the subject of the ex parte application (or for that matter any of the other defendants in the case)

has filed an opposition to the application. Nonetheless, the request for entry of default judgment

against some, but not all, served defendants in a multi-defendant case such as the present one

raises the question as to whether the motion is premature under Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552

(1872). 

Frow stands for the proposition that, "where a complaint alleges that defendants are jointly

liable and one of them defaults, judgment should not be entered against the defaulting defendant

until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants." In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc.,

253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001). The rule in Frow has been extended by the Ninth Circuit to

circumstances where the defaulting and remaining defendants have closely related defenses or

Case 3:09-cv-00128-W-AJB Document 18 Filed 12/18/08 Page 1 of 2
ED CV 08-01256-SGL(JTLx)

HARDWOODS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS US, LP v WALKER WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

MINUTE ORDER of December 18, 2008

MINUTES FORM 90 Initials of Deputy Clerk __jh_______

CIVIL -- GEN 2

are otherwise similarly situated. Id. 

In its ex parte application, plaintiff represents that, "because the liability of Walker Wood and

Walker Cabinet is independent from the liability of other parties to this action," entry of default

judgment is appropriate. (Ex Parte App. at 2). However, nowhere in its voluminous application

has the Court found any explanation as to why and how the defendants' liability that is the subject

of the application is, in fact, independent of nor similarly situated to the remaining defendants in the

case. 

Given that this is a fundamental obstacle to the entry of default judgment in this case, the

Court hereby affords plaintiff an opportunity to file by Tuesday, December 23, 2008, a

supplemental pleading in support of its ex parte application, not to exceed seven (7) pages,

explaining why and how entry of default judgment against Wood Industries and Wood Cabinet

would not transgress the rule set forth in Frow and expanded in First T.D.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:09-cv-00128-W-AJB Document 18 Filed 12/18/08 Page 2 of 2