Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Crescent Alliance Group, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

March 19, 2015

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
CRESCENT ALLIANCE GROUP, INC., Defendant.

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Re: Docket No. 11]

HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.

Federal Insurance Company sues Crescent Alliance Group, Inc. for failure to remit premiums and surcharges for insurance coverage provided by Plaintiff. The Clerk entered default against Defendant after it was served with a summons and complaint but failed to answer or otherwise appear. See Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment. See Dkt. No. 11. Defendant has not opposed the motion. Because not all parties have consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction, the undersigned orders that the case be REASSIGNED to a district judge. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the motion be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff issued the following policies of workers' compensation insurance to Defendant: (1) Policy No. 004472717100 for the effective dates of July 31, 2011 to July 31, 2012 ("2011 Policy"); and (2) a renewal of the 2011 Policy under Policy No. 0044727101 for the effective dates of July 31, 2012 to July 31, 2013, cancelled mid-term as of April 18, 2013 ("2012 Policy"). Compl. ¶¶ 6-7. These two policies are insurance contracts that provide, in exchange for payment of premiums, insurance coverage for liabilities of Defendant under the workers' compensation statutes of various states, including California. Id. ¶ 8.

Plaintiff alleges that it fulfilled its contractual obligations and provided the coverage afforded by the Polices. Id. ¶ 9. For the 2011 Policy, the sum total of premiums and surcharges, including audit premiums, is $437, 867. Id. ¶ 13. Defendant remitted $186, 452 for premiums and surcharges, and therefore remains indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $251, 415. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. For the 2012 Policy, the sum total of premiums and surcharges, including the audit premiums, is $207, 650. Id. ¶ 16. Defendant remitted $194, 053 for premiums and surcharges, and therefore remains indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $13, 597. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Although Plaintiff has issued invoices and demands for payment for the outstanding premiums, Defendant has failed to remit the payment of $265, 012 owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the Policies. Id. ¶¶ 19-20.

The complaint asserts three claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) account stated. Dkt. No. 1. Defendant was served in April 2014. Dkt. No. 7. Defendant did not file an answer. Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default, and the Court entered default. Dkt. Nos. 8, 9. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment against Defendant. Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff requests that default judgment be entered against Defendant in the amount of $265, 012 plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be determined upon further application of Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a party is in "default" if the party has failed to plead or "otherwise defend" in a timely fashion to a pleading seeking affirmative relief against the party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).

After entry of default by the Clerk, courts are authorized to grant default judgment in their discretion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55; Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). A court may consider the following factors in deciding whether to enter default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the plaintiff's 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 underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In considering these factors, all factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint are taken as true, except those relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

DISCUSSION

A. Entry of Default Judgment

The Eitel factors favor entry of default judgment here. First, Plaintiff's claims have merit, and all are sufficiently pled. In regards to the first claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant agreed to remit payment of premiums and surcharges, including audit premiums, in consideration for Plaintiff's provision of insurance coverage to Defendant. Compl. ¶ 24. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the contracts (i.e., the Policies) by refusing to remit payment of $265, 012 to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the Policies. Id. ¶¶ 25-26.

In regards to the second claim for unjust enrichment, Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff has provided insurance coverage and related services to Defendant, which Defendant has refused to pay for. Id. ¶ 29. Defendant has thus been unjustly enriched by the receipt of such coverage and services to Plaintiff's detriment. Id. ¶ 30. Although Plaintiff has demanded that Defendant remit payment of the amounts due and owing to Plaintiff, Defendant has refused to do so. Id. ¶¶ 31-32.

In regards to the third claim for account stated, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, being indebted to Plaintiff upon accounts stated between them, and having acknowledged such debt, promised to pay Plaintiff upon demand. Id. ¶ 34. Although Plaintiff has repeatedly demanded that Defendant remit ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.