1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW Case No. 3:14-cv-00975-MO

YORK, a New York corporation,

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER

 

v. 

 

ROSE CITY AUTO GROUP, LLC, an Oregon 

limited liability company; LEONARD M. 

SHILEY, an individual; TERESA BYLE, an 

individual; LOGAN DRIEDRIC, an individual; 

JOANNA STONER, an individual; STEPHEN 

STONER, an individual; LOVE MARTINO, an 

individual; ANAN SRIVILAI, an individual; 

CAMERON JOHNSON, an individual; 

JONATHAN GILBERT, an individual; TINA 

HARRAL, an individual; ROY WIEGAND, an 

individual; NATHAN LANGER, an individual; 

KAREN BERSINE, an individual; MELISSA 

STEVENS, an individual; TONY EDWARDS, 

an individual; DEBBIE RECKTANGLE, an 

individual; RODNEY JENKINS, an individual; 

STEPHEN SCHANTIN, an individual; 

BRITTANY LAWRENCE, an individual; MATT 

REED, an individual; SHERIAL REED, an 

individual; RACHEL SCHANTIN, an individual; 

EZEKIAL HUNT, an individual; BOBBY 

HEAGLE, an individual; LANEY 

BLANKENSHIP, an individual; LONNEY 

FRANCIS, an individual; OREGON 

COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, an Oregon 

non-profit entity; TWINSTAR CREDIT UNION,

Defendants.

Case 3:14-cv-00975-MO Document 88 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 3
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

MOSMAN, J., 

On June 15, 2015, Westlake Flooring Company (“Westlake”) filed their Renewed Motion 

for Default Judgment against Defendants Leonard M. Shiley and Rose City Auto Group, LLC 

[84]. Westlake has also filed a Motion for Attorney Fees [85]. For the reasons stated below, I 

DENY both motions. 

In my prior Opinion regarding the Resolution of Claims and Final Disbursement of Funds 

[74], I noted that Westlake based its claim solely upon fraud by Rose City, without any reference 

to the elements of fraud. In support of their assertion, Westlake proffered an uncatalogued trove 

of documents, which totaled 136 pages in total. Westlake failed to authenticate this evidence and 

did not provide any certification to its veracity. In determining damages, Westlake failed to 

explain the chart of its claimed damages, and upon further inspection, the numbers provided did 

not match the documentation attached to its cross-complaint. Despite their lack of assistance, I 

was able to determine that Westlake was damaged in the amount of $9,384.52, which was 

reduced pro rata to $6,860. Westlake has now filed a renewed motion for default judgment and 

attorney fees. 

In their Renewed Motion for Default Judgment, Westlake has provided no additional 

information or support to justify their claim for the $2,524.52 they are seeking. Since Westlake 

has filed to adequately make such a claim, I DENY their renewed motion [84]. 

Westlake has also filed a Motion for Attorney Fees. On two occasions now, Westlake’s 

counsel has failed to adequately brief or assist this court in its assessment of this matter. 

Independent from any assistance from Westlake, this court was left to search through the 

extensive trove of uncatalogued documents Westlake provided to determine what a proper 

Case 3:14-cv-00975-MO Document 88 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 3
3 – OPINION AND ORDER

damages calculation should be. Therefore I decline to award Westlake any attorney fees and 

DENY their request [85]. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 14th day of August, 2015. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman____ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-00975-MO Document 88 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 3