Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01380-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
HEC Group, Inc
Defendant
Huffine Electric Company
Defendant
JPI California Construction Services, L.P.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

JPI CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION )

SERVICES, L.P., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

HEC GROUP, INC., individually and dba )

HUFFINE ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv1380 LJO DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Document 18)

Plaintiff JPI California Construction Services, L.P., (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion

for default judgment on April 17, 2007. The motion was referred to this court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on October 4, 2006, based on this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Huffine Electric Company and HEC Group, Inc., individually

and dba Huffine Electric Company (“HEC”), breached the subcontract on a construction project. 

Plaintiff seeks an award of damages, with interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and declaratory

relief. 

Case 1:06-cv-01380-LJO-DLB Document 28 Filed 06/02/07 Page 1 of 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

2

According to the complaint, Plaintiff is duly licensed and authorized to act as a general

contractor in the State of California. During the relevant time, HEC held a California license

authorizing it to act as an electrical contractor within California. On or about July 18, 2005,

HEC entered into a written subcontract with Plaintiff by which HEC agreed to provide work,

labor and materials for the construction of the electrical systems, lighting systems and fire alarm

systems for a project known as Jefferson Commons-Fresno (the “Project”) for a fixed contract

price of $1,140,000. By approved change orders, the contract price was increased to

$1,199,099.12. Declaration of Curtis Bentley (“Bentley Dec.”), ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges that it

performed all of its covenants and obligations under the subcontract. In or about April or May

2006, HEC breached the contract by :

1. Failing to make payments for labor, materials and equipment incurred by them

and failing to carry out the work required of them under the subcontract; 

2. Abandoning the work required of them because they could not complete the

subcontract for the unpaid balance of the contract price and did not provide

evidence that they were able to pay the costs in excess of the contract price

necessary to complete their scope of work; 

3. Failing to furnish labor, materials, sales and use taxes, equipment, tools,

machinery, supplies, skilled labor and supervision for the completion of the work; 

4. Failing to install the fire alarm system; and

5. Failing to complete items on the punch list.

The complaint alleges that as a result of this breach, Plaintiff has been damaged in the

amount of $326,825.86, and additional sums as may be required to complete the project and

satisfy the claims of the parties that furnished the goods, materials and labor to HEC in

connection with the Project.

According to Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Plaintiff sent HEC a letter dated

August 22, 2006, notifying HEC that Plaintiff estimated that the additional cost resulting from

their breach would be $326,825.86. Ultimately, Plaintiff spent a total of $408,343.01 above the

$1,199,099.12 contract price. Bentley Dec., ¶ 7. 

Case 1:06-cv-01380-LJO-DLB Document 28 Filed 06/02/07 Page 2 of 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

3

HEC did not respond to the August 2006, letter, nor have they appeared in this action. 

On November 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that HEC was served on

October 19, 2006. The Clerk of the Court entered default on December 29, 2006. 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for default judgment on April 17, 2007. HEC was

served with the motion but has not responded or otherwise communicated with the Court. 

Plaintiff requests judgment as follows: (1) $408,334.01 in monetary damages, as well as

$21,592.84 for interest thereon from October 3, 2006, through May 15, 2007, with additional

interest at the rate of $111.88 per day until the entry of judgment; (2) $5,925.00 attorneys’ fees;

and (3) $370.69 in costs

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for entry of default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

55(b)(2), which provides that judgment may be entered:

By the Court. In all other cases the party entitled to a judgment by default

shall apply to the court therefor; but no judgment by default shall be entered

against an infant or incompetent person unless represented in the action by a

general guardian, committee, conservator, or other such representative who has

appeared therein. If the party against whom judgment by default is sought has

appeared in the action, the party (or, if appearing by representative, the party's

representative) shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment

at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such application. If, in order to enable the

court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account

or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment

by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may

conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper

and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required by any

statute of the United States.

“Upon default, the well pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability are taken

as true.” Dundee Cement Co. v. Highway Pipe and Concrete Products, 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th

Cir. 1983); Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, “[a]t

the time of entry of default, the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the complaint are deemed

admitted.” 10 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice §55.11 (3d ed. 2000). 

Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of a

default judgment include: (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

Case 1:06-cv-01380-LJO-DLB Document 28 Filed 06/02/07 Page 3 of 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

 Although Plaintiff’s civil cover sheet was filed on October 3, 2006, its complaint was not filed until 1

October 4, 2006, due to Plaintiff’s failure to prepay the filing fee. The Court therefore uses the date of October 4,

2006, to begin calculating interest.

4

the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was

due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th

Cir. 1986).

HEC was served on October 16, 2006. The Clerk entered default on December 29, 2006. 

HEC is not and infant or incompetent person, and is not in the military service or otherwise

exempted under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940. 

Having read and considered the declarations, pleadings and exhibits to the present

motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for $408,334.01 in monetary damages, as well as

$21,480.96 in interest thereon from October 4, 2006, through May 15, 2007, with additional 1

interest at the rate of $111.88 per day until the entry of judgment, is a reasonable request. Henry

v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315, 317 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding that default judgment was not

limited to the amount stated in the complaint where the plaintiff prayed for additional damages,

the amount of which was to be determined at trial); see also Merrifield v. Miner's Inn Restaurant

& Lounge, 2006 WL 4285241, *3 (E.D.Cal.,2006); Cal. Civ. Code § 3287.

Additionally, pursuant to the provisions of the Subcontract, Plaintiff is entitled to

reasonable attorneys fees in the amount of $5,925.00, as well as $370.69 in costs. Declaration of

Anne Bevington, ¶¶ 4-5.

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against HEC be

GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff be AWARDED monetary damages in the amount of $408,334.01, as well

as $21,480.96 in interest thereon from October 4, 2006, through May 15, 2007,

with additional interest at the rate of $111.88 per day until the entry of judgment,

Case 1:06-cv-01380-LJO-DLB Document 28 Filed 06/02/07 Page 4 of 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

5

3. Plaintiffs be AWARDED reasonable attorneys fees in the amount of $5,925.00;

and 

4. Plaintiff be AWARDED costs in the amount of $370.69.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B)

and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern

District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01380-LJO-DLB Document 28 Filed 06/02/07 Page 5 of 5