Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01413/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01413-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Integon National Insurance Company
Plaintiff
Damian Seavers
Defendant
Gary Speed
Defendant

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GARY SPEED and DAMIAN SEAVERS, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-01413 KJM AC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 This case comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against 

defendant Damien Seavers. ECF No. 21 and 22 (erroneously docketed twice). The motion was 

referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(19), and was taken under submission. 

ECF No. 24. Both defendants in this matter filed statements of non-opposition. ECF Nos. 28 

(Seavers Non-Opposition), 29 (Speed Non-Opposition). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default may be entered against a party 

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought who fails to plead or otherwise defend 

against the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). However, a defendant’s default does not 

automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment. Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 

924-25 (9th Cir. 1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Instead, the decision to grant or deny an 

application for default judgment lies within the district court’s sound discretion. Aldabe v. 

Case 2:19-cv-01413-KJM-AC Document 30 Filed 03/26/20 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 

Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The court’s discretion is guided by consideration of 

multiple factors. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Here the 

parties—including the defaulting defendant against whom judgment is sought—agree that default 

judgment is appropriate; the individual Eitel factors therefore need not be discussed. 

 The undersigned has reviewed the complaint and finds that its allegations are well 

pleaded. Because (1) defendant Seavers has not appeared in the action except to file a statement 

of non-opposition to the default judgment; (2) the clerk previously entered the defendant’s default 

on September 16, 2019 (ECF No. 16); and (3) no party opposes this motion, the undersigned 

finds that default judgment is appropriate. 

 Judgment should be entered on the following terms: 

The Court hereby adjudges, declares, and decrees the following with 

respect to plaintiff’s causes of action in the complaint against 

defendant Damian Seavers only: 

1. Plaintiff has no obligation under Integon National Insurance 

Company policy no. HOS1354575 to indemnify Damian Seavers 

against the claims made by Gary Speed in Sacramento Superior 

Court action no. 34-2018-00227960 or otherwise arising from the 

September 30, 2016 incident alleged in the complaint; and 

2. Plaintiff has no obligation under Integon National Insurance 

Company policy no. HOS1354575 to defend Damian Seavers 

against the claims made by Gary Speed in Sacramento Superior 

Court action no. 34-2018-00227960 or otherwise arising from the 

September 30, 2016 incident alleged in the complaint; 

CONCLUSION 

 It is hereby RECOMMENDED THAT plaintiff’s January 22, 2020 motion for default 

judgment against defendant Damian Seavers only (ECF No. 22) be granted, with the terms of 

judgment set forth above. The duplicative motion filed at ECF No. 21 shall be TERMINATED. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all 

Case 2:19-cv-01413-KJM-AC Document 30 Filed 03/26/20 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 

parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: March 26, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-01413-KJM-AC Document 30 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 3