NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASITAS A FOOTWEAR COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. LBSECOND, INC., DBA O My Sole; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 56651

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv
- 04410

- FMO

- SK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 12, 2020 * * Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, COLLINS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Casitas A Footwear Company, Inc. ( “ Casitas ” ) appeals the district

court’s denial of Casitas’ motion to reconsider the default judgment entered in

Castitas’ favor

. We review the denial of a motion for r econsideration and a decision

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

to enter a default judgment for abuse of discretion. Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. , 727 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013) ; Estrada v. Speno & Cohen , 244 F.3d 1050, 1056
(9th Cir. 2001)

. We affirm.
Casitas provided shoes to Defendant LBSecond, Inc. to sell on consignment

to LBSecond’s retail stores. (LBSecond, Inc., its owners, and other related
corporations are all defendants here and are collectively referred to as “LBSecond.”)

.
LBSecond encounte red financial trouble and then refused to return the shoes or pay
certain amounts for shoes already sold

. Casitas filed suit, but LBSecond did not
appear in the district court (and has not appeared in this Court). The district court

awarded Casitas a def

ault judgment of $1,095,121.98. This amount consisted of the

full value of Casitas ’ shoes in LBSecond’s possession ($ 1,033,628.50) , along with
unpaid invoices for shoes previously sold ($61,493.48). Casitas moved for
reconsideration of the default judgme nt, arguing that the district court should have

also ordered LB S econd to return the shoes.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Casitas’ motion for

reconsideration

. The district court correctly recognized that Casitas’ causes of action

for possession and conversion sought redress for the same tortious conduct. Casitas
requested $1,033,628.50 in damages in its conversion count, and with the additional
$61,493.48 for u npaid invoices, the district court awarded Casitas the full amount of

its claimed loss.3

In considering the entry of a default judgment in the context of a complaint
pleading alternative claims and alternative remedies, the district court did not abuse

it s discretion in choosing to enter a judgment affording only one of the alternative
forms of relief requested

. P articularly on the record before it, the district court acted

within its discretion in not issu ing the more intrusive remedy of repossession “wh ere money damages would adequately redress plaintiff’s injury.” In a footnote in its
brief, Casitas suggests that LBSecond “might” be unable to satisfy the money
judgment. But that speculation , without more, does not require reversal of the

decision belo w.
For these reasons, “[t]he denial of a default judgment” as to repossession “was

within the court’s discretion , ” Eitel v. McCool , 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) ,
and there was no abuse of discretion

.
AFFIRMED

.