Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180511_0000614.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:26:41+00:00

Document:
FindACase | SHO Services, LLC v. China Film Group Corp.
SHO Services, LLC v. China Film Group Corp.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sho Services, LLC's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant China Film Group Corporation. (Doc. # 16.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted and a default judgment is entered.
To recover this outstanding debt, Plaintiff commenced this action, asserting two claims for relief: Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment. (Doc. # 1.) Plaintiff effectuated service on November 13, 2017. (Doc. # 14.) When Defendant did not respond to the Complaint or otherwise enter an appearance, Plaintiff moved for an Entry of Default, which the Clerk granted on February 13, 2018 (Doc. # 18), and a Default Judgment, which is the subject of the instant order.
Before entering default judgment against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, the district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over the parties. Williams v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1202-03 (10th Cir. 1986); see also Hukill v. Okla. Native Am. Domestic Violence Coalition, 542 F.3d 794, 797 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[A] default judgment in a civil case is void if there is no personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”). Defects in personal jurisdiction are not waived by default when a party fails to appear or to respond, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving personal jurisdiction before a default judgment may be entered. Williams, 802 F.2d at 1202-03. “Where, as here, the issue is determined on the basis of the pleadings and affidavits, that burden may be met by a prima facie showing.” Sharpshooter Spectrum Venture, LLC v. Consentino, No. 09-cv-0150-WDM-KLM, 2011 WL 3159094, at *2 (D. Colo. July 26, 2011) (citing Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2011)).
To establish personal jurisdiction in a diversity case, a plaintiff must show both that jurisdiction is proper under the forum state's long-arm statute and that exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Equifax Services, Inc. v. Hitz, 905 F.2d 1355, 1357 (10th Cir. 1990). Colorado's long-arm statute permits the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction to the full extent of the Due Process Clause so the analysis collapses into a single due process inquiry. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-124(1)(a)-(b); Dart Int'l, Inc. v. Interactive Target Sys., Inc., 877 F.Supp. 541, 543 (D. Colo. 1995) (citing Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 167 Colo. 456 (1968)); SGI Air Holdings II LLC. v. Novartis Int'l, AG, 192 F.Supp.2d 1195, 1197-98 (D. Colo. 2002).
“The Due Process Clause protects a [defendant's] liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which [it] has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.'” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)). To comport with due process limitations, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction only over defendants that have “certain minimum contacts [with the jurisdiction] . . . .” Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).
This minimum contacts standard may be satisfied in either of two ways-general or specific jurisdiction. See Kuenzle v. HTM Sport-Und Freizeitgerate AG, 102 F.3d 453, 455 (10th Cir. 1996). The court's duty is the same in either case: guarantee that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980) (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316) (internal quotation omitted).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.