IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

SOUTH COAST LUMBER CO., 

Plaintiff~ 

v. 

BLUE LAKE POWER, LLC, 

Defendant. 

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge. 

Civ. No. 1: 15-cv-0 1651-CL 

REPORT & 

RECOMMENDATION 

This case is currently before the court on Plaintiffs Motion (#11) for Default Judgment. 

BACKGROUND 

On September 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed this breach of contract action against Defendant. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant agreed to purchase wood fuel from Plaintiff at a rate of $43 per 

"bone dry ton" or "BOT." Plaintiff delivered 3,654.43 BDT to Defendant, but Defendant failed 

to pay Plaintiff the $157,140.49 owed. As a result, Plaintiff claims it is entitled to judgment 

against Defendant in the principal amount of $157,140.49 plus 9 percent interest accruing froq1 

July 24,2015, the date Plaintiff sent a demand letter. 

Page I - Report & Recommendation 

Case 1:15-cv-01651-CL Document 13 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 4
On September 2, 2015, a Summons (#4) was issued to the Registered Agent for 

Defendant. On September 8, 2015, a process server served (#6) a copy of the summons, 

complaint, and civil case management order on the clerk on duty for Defendant's Registered 

Agent. The process server indicated (#5) that the clerk was "authorized to accept" the service on 

behalf of the Registered Agent. On October 19, 2 015, Plaintiff sent copies of the documents to 

Defendant via First Class mail (#7). 

To date, Defendant has failed to plead, defend, or otherwise appear in this action. The 

time for doing so set forth in Rule 12 has now expired. On October 28, 2015, Plaintiff moved 

(#8) the Clerk of Court for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55. The Clerk entered default (#1 0) 

the following day. On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed its currently pending motion (#11) for 

default judgment. 

DISCUSSION 

Rule 55(b) identifies two routes to default judgment after an entry of default. On the 

plaintiffs request, the Clerk of the Court "must" enter default judgment if the defendant is 

"neither a minor nor an incompetent person" and "the plaintiffs claim is for a sum certain or a 

sum that can be made certain by computation." FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b )(1 ). Otherwise, on the 

plaintiffs motion, the Court "may" enter default judgment. FED. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). In 

exercising its discretion whether to grant or deny a motion for default judgment, the Court must 

consider seven factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiffs 

substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; ( 4) the sum of money at stake in 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 favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 

· 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Default judgments are generally disfavored: Id. at 1472. 

Page 2 -Report & Recommendation 

Case 1:15-cv-01651-CL Document 13 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff invokes the first option's standard. It argues that default judgment is appropriate 

because Defendant is not an infant or an incompetent person, and Plaintiffs claim is for a sum 

certain. However, it moves the Court, not the Clerk, for default judgment. Because Plaintiffs 

request is addressed to the Court, the Court will analyze its motion under subsection (2)'s 

discretionary standard. 

The Eitel factors weigh in favor of default judgment. If default judgment were not 

granted, Plaintiff would not have an alternative legal remedy. Plaintiffs complaint states a 

sufficient claim, and proffered documents support its merits. The sum of money at stake is 

sizeable, but Plaintiff has established its certainty by providing documents that set forth the 

various amounts necessary for calculating the amount owed. Franchise Holding II. LLC. v. 

Huntington Restaurants Grp .. Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir. 2004). There is no indication that 

Defendant's failure to appear was caused by excusable neglect. The policy in favor of a decision 

on the merits is not workable here since Defendant has not appeared or responded. 

Plaintiff seeks recovery totaling $157,140.49 plus interest for wood fuel it delivered to 

Defendant. The parties' purchase agreement and outstanding invoices support this amount. Davis 

v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981) (a plaintiff must establish damages by proof, 

unless the amount is liquidated or otherwise susceptible of computation). Plaintiff requested the 

same sum in its pleadings. FED. R. C1v. P. 54( c) (relief for cases of default judgment "must not 

differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings."). 

RECOMMENDATION 

. For the reasons stated above, the court recommends that Plaintiffs motion for default 

judgment be granted in the amount of$157,140.49 plus interest. 

Page 3 - Report & Recommendation 

Case 1:15-cv-01651-CL Document 13 Filed 12/01/15 Page 3 of 4
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

Rule 4(a)(l) should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. 

The Report and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections to this 

Report and Recommendation, if any, are due fourteen (14) days from today's date. If 

objections are filed, any response to the objections is due fourteen (14) days from the date of 

the objections. See FED. R. C!v. P. 72, 6. 

MARK D. CLARKE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Page 4 -Report & Recommendation 

Case 1:15-cv-01651-CL Document 13 Filed 12/01/15 Page 4 of 4