NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 reconsideration 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 APPEALS
2 

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 encountered 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 default 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 judgment, arguing that the district court should have 

also ordered LBSecond 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 unpaid 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 

its discretion in choosing to enter a judgment affording only one of the alternative 

forms of relief requested. Particularly on the record before it, the district court acted 

within its discretion in not issuing the more intrusive remedy of repossession “where 

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 below. 

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.