Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02096/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02096-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02096-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED GENETICS SEEDS COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZHANGYE XINZE AGRICULTURAL 

DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02096-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 40

After Defendant Zhangye Xinze Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. (“Defendant”) failed 

to comply with an order requiring it to obtain counsel by July 25, 2016, this court issued an order 

striking its Answer and entering default. Dkt. No. 38. The court also ordered Plaintiff United 

Genetics Seeds Company (“Plaintiff”) to re-file a motion for entry of default judgment which 

discusses the factors outlined in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has 

done so, and that motion is presently before the court. Dkt. No. 40. 

Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having carefully considered the 

motion for entry of default judgment in conjunction with the record, the court finds, concludes, 

and orders as follows:

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), the court may enter default 

judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend an action. “The district 

court’s decision whether to enter default judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 

F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).

2. The Ninth Circuit has provided seven factors for consideration by the district court 

to determine whether to enter a default judgment, known commonly as the Eitel factors. They are: 

Case 5:15-cv-02096-EJD Document 41 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02096-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

(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 

dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether default was due to excusable neglect and; (7) the 

strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 

Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72. When assessing these factors, all well-pled factual allegations in the 

complaint are taken as true, except those with regard to damages. Televideo Sys., Inc. v. 

Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

3. As to the first factor, the court previously found that Plaintiff would be 

significantly prejudiced in the absence of a resolution through default because this case cannot 

otherwise proceed without counsel for Defendant. See United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 

3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (“A corporation may appear in federal court only through 

licensed counsel.”). That observation still remains true, and this factor weighs in favor of default 

judgment.

4. As to the second and third factors, Plaintiff’s substantive claim appears meritorious 

and the Complaint is sufficiently pled. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant demanded payment 

on a contract for seeds that it did not order, and has submitted a declaration from its Vice President 

and Director supporting the factual allegations in the Complaint. See Decl. of Norma Ludergnani, 

Dkt. No. 35. Through this litigation, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and a determination that it 

owes nothing under the purported contract Defendant produced as a basis for its demand. These 

factors also weigh in favor of default judgment.

5. As to the fourth factor, Plaintiff does not seek monetary damages other than its 

costs. This factor therefore weighs in favor of default judgment.

6. As to the fifth factor, there is no dispute of material fact. Indications that there 

exists a dispute of material fact can weigh against entry of default judgment. See Eitel, 782 F.2d 

at 1471-72. But here, Defendant has not disputed any of Plaintiff’s contentions since Defendant 

failed to respond to either the Complaint, and the material facts pled in the Complaint are 

supported by declaration. 

7. For the sixth factor, it is unlikely that default was the result of excusable neglect. 

Case 5:15-cv-02096-EJD Document 41 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02096-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

This action was filed over a year ago, and while Defendant initially appeared, its attorney 

withdrew due to Defendant’s failure to pay. Since then, Defendant has not participated and has 

failed to comply with the order to retain new counsel despite having been served with that order. 

Dkt. No. 34. Consequently, this factor weighs in favor of default judgment.

8. Finally, the seventh factor weighs in favor of default judgment because “although 

federal policy favors decisions on the merits, Rule 55(b)(2) permits entry of default judgment in 

situations such as this where defendants refuse to litigate.” J & J Sports Prods, Inc. v. 

Concepcion, No. 10-CV-05092, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60607, at *5, 2011 WL 2220101 (N.D. 

Cal. June 7, 2011). Thus, the general policy in favor of merits decisions is outweighed by the 

specific considerations made in this case. As such, this factor does not prevent entry of default 

judgment here.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment (Dkt. No. 40) is

GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, and the Clerk 

shall close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02096-EJD Document 41 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 3