United States District Court, N.D. California
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 17
JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge.
This is a breach of contract case by Calix, Inc. ("Calix" or "Plaintiff") against Alfa Consult, S.A. ("Alfa" or "Defendant") for two unpaid invoices. Calix has filed and served the Complaint on Alfa, sought and received an entry of default, and now moves for default judgment. Alfa has not appeared in this action. The Motion came on for hearing on June 12, 2015. In response to the Court's requests, Plaintiff's counsel filed a supplemental declaration on June 12, 2015 and a second supplemental declaration on June 22, 2015. Since there is no consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction from Defendant, the case will be reassigned to a district court judge. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Motion be GRANTED.
A. Factual Background
Plaintiff Calix is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and doing business in California. Compl. at 1. Defendant Alfa is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Luxembourg. Id. On December 3, 2012, Calix and Alfa entered into a commercial agreement ("Agreement") for Alfa, the reseller, to sell Calix's products and services in Iraq. See id. Ex. A (Non-Exclusive Reseller Agreement). Alfa purchased a number of products from Calix in connection with a project for the Maysan Governorate in Iraq, and Calix issued Alfa invoices for these purchases. Id. at 2. On January 27, 2014, Calix issued Alfa an invoice in the amount of $120, 000.00 with a due date of February 26, 2014 (invoice no. 1052636). Id. On February 6, 2014, Calix issued Alfa another invoice in the amount of $805.50 with a due date of March 8, 2014 (invoice no. 1053509). Id. These two unpaid, past-due invoices are the subject of this lawsuit. Id. Between February 2014 and January 2015, Calix demanded "on multiple occasions" that Alfa pay the invoices, and Alfa "repeatedly told Calix that payment would be forthcoming, " but Calix never received payment. Id. Calix claims entitlement to (1) damages in the amount of $120, 805.50; (2) prejudgment interest on amounts due under the Agreement at the rate of 1.5%; (3) post-judgment interest; and (4) attorney's fees and costs. Compl. at 3.
B. Procedural Background
On March 3, 2015, Calix filed the instant Complaint. Dkt. 1. On March 11, 2015, the court clerk Gina Agustine-Rivas served the Summons and Complaint on Alfa using FedEx International, requiring a signed receipt. See Declaration of Terry Sterling in Support of the Application for Entry of Default Judgment ("Sterling Decl.") Ex. A (Certificate of Service). The package was received and signed for by Lena on March 13, 2015. See Sterling Decl. Ex. B (FedEx Proof of Delivery).
Alfa did not file an answer to the Complaint or otherwise appear in this action. On April 10, 2015, the clerk entered default against Alfa. Dkt. 12. Calix filed the present Motion on May 4, 2015, and the Motion remains unopposed.
C. Requested Relief
Calix requests default judgment against Alfa and the following relief: (1) payment for the two unpaid purchases in the amount of $120, 805.50; (2) prejudgment interest in the amount of $28, 981.24; (3) post-judgment interest; and (4) attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $15, 233.65. Mot. at 5; Supplemental Declaration of Terry Sterling in Support of Request for (1) Attorneys' Fees and Costs and (2) Prejudgment Interest in Connection with Entry of Default Judgment ("Sterling Supp. Decl.") ¶ 8.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
After an entry of default by the court clerk, a district court may enter a default judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). Provided that jurisdiction is proper and service of process on the defendant was adequate, the court considers several factors to determine whether default judgment is appropriate:
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of 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 ...