Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00109/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AG-Wise Incorporated
Defendant
Big Chuy Distributors & Sons Incorporated
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Big Chuy Distributors & Sons

Incorporated, an Arizona corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

AG-Wise Incorporated, a California

corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 12-109 TUC-RCC-LAB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a motion for default judgment filed by the plaintiff on

August 22, 2012. (Doc. 12) 

The plaintiff, Big Chuy Distributors & Sons, is a middleman in the produce business.

The defendant, Ag-Wise Incorporated, is a grower. Pursuant to a Distribution Agreement,

Big Chuy advanced money to Ag-Wise to grow and harvest a crop, which was delivered to

Big Chuy for sale to third parties. Big Chuy sold the produce, but apparently it did not make

enough to cover its costs. Big Chuy claims Ag-Wise still owes it $106,414.28 under the

Distribution Agreement. In the instant motion, Big Chuy moves for default judgment.

Magistrate Judge Bowman currently presides over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§636(c)(1) having received the plaintiff’s written consent. Because the defendant has not yet

Case 4:12-cv-00109-LAB Document 14 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

appeared, this court has prepared a report and recommendation, which will be directed to

District Judge Raner C. Collins.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny the motion without

prejudice. Big Chuy has not proven its damages are a “sum certain.”

Discussion

Big Chuy filed its complaint on February 17, 2012. (Doc. 1) Service on Ag-Wise was

accomplished on March 22, 2012. (Doc. 8) Ag-Wise failed to file a timely answer, and the

Clerk entered default on June 7, 2012. (Doc. 10)

On August 22, 2012, Big Chuy filed the pending motion for default judgment against

Ag-Wise. (Doc. 12) Big Chuy argues its damages are a “sum certain” in the amount of

$113,701.78. (Doc. 12-1, ¶ 9) It further argues it is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in

the amount of $6,207.50 and taxable costs of $648.40. (Doc. 12-1, p. 4) 

The Rule reads in pertinent part as follows:

If the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain

by computation, the clerk– on the plaintiff’s request, with an affidavit showing

the amount due–must enter judgment for that amount and costs against a

defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor

nor an incompetent person. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(1).

In the Ninth Circuit, “a claim is not a sum certain unless no doubt remains as to the

amount to which a plaintiff is entitled as a result of the defendant’s default.” Franchise

Holding II, LLC. v. Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir 2004),

cert. denied, 544 U.S. 949 (2005). The plaintiff in this case has not established its damages

to this level of certainty. 

Big Chuy states it is entitled to $113,701.78, which “represents all known unpaid

contractual claims in the amount of $106,414.28, plus prejudgment interest at 10% per

annum from December 15, 2011” until August 21, 2012. (Doc. 12-1, p. 3) Big Chuy does

not, however, explain how the base figure, $106,414.28, was calculated. The court infers

that Big Chuy calculated its damages based on the money it advanced to Ag-Wise minus the

Case 4:12-cv-00109-LAB Document 14 Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

revenue generated from the sale of the produce minus additional costs. Unfortunately, Big

Chuy provides none of these figures. But see, e.g., Franchise Holding II, 375 F.3d at 929

(No doubt remained as to the plaintiff’s damages where the plaintiff “presented the clerk with

loan documents that set forth the specific formulas for determining the amount owed” and

“provided documents setting forth the various amounts necessary for calculating the total

amount due.”).

In its complaint, Big Chuy mentions those additional costs but does not provide any

specifics. Big Chuy states it is entitled to contractual damages of $106,414.28 plus interest

“after all offsets, including a commission and handling charge.” (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3) Big Chuy

does not, however, indicate what those “offsets” were and how they were determined. 

At this point, the court cannot conclude that “no doubt remains as to the amount to

which [Big Chuy] is entitled as a result of the defendant’s default.” See Franchise Holding

II, LLC. v. Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir 2004). Big Chuy

has not established its damages are a “sum certain.” See, e.g., KPS & Associates, Inc. v.

Designs by FMC, Inc., 318 F.3d 1, 20 n. 9 (1st Cir. 2003) (“Neither the fact that the complaint

identifies a purported aggregate total, nor the fact that the affidavit attests to such a sum,

automatically converts KPS’s claim into a ‘sum certain.’”). 

The court expresses no opinion as to whether or not Big Chuy is entitled to an award

of attorneys’ fees. The court notes that Big Chuy does not explain whether the source of its

claim is statutory or contractual.

The court further notes that the “declaration” submitted by counsel in support of the

motion “[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746”does not include the written formalities required by

that statute. (Doc. 12-1, p. 2)

RECOMMENDATION

Case 4:12-cv-00109-LAB Document 14 Filed 10/24/12 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

DENYING without prejudice the motion for default judgment filed by the plaintiff

on August 22, 2012. (Doc. 12) 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 

DATED this 24th day of October, 2012.

Case 4:12-cv-00109-LAB Document 14 Filed 10/24/12 Page 4 of 4