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.

Hutchinson Aerospace and Industry, Inc. v. Erie Mill and Press Co.

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 25, 2016

HUTCHINSON AEROSPACE & INDUSTRY, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
ERIE MILL & PRESS CO., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [15]

          OTIS D. RIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Hutchinson Aerospace & Industry, Inc. (“Hutchinson”) entered into an agreement to purchase a hydraulic compression molding press (“Hydraulic Press”) from Defendant Erie Mill & Press Co. (“Erie”). Hutchinson tendered the full progress payments to Erie, thereby fulfilling its initial contractual obligations; however, Erie failed to deliver the Hydraulic Press. Plaintiff filed this action to recover the cost of the progress payments made. Erie failed to respond in this action and Hutchinson now moves for default judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Hutchinsons’ Motion. (ECF No. 15.)[1]

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Hutchinson manufactures and supplies equipment for shock attenuation and vibration. (Acker Decl. ¶ 2., ECF No. 15-2.) One of the pieces of equipment used to manufacture such equipment is a Hydraulic Press, which is manufactured by Erie. (Id.) On November 22, 2013, Hutchinson’s engineering manager contacted Erie to inquire as to the production and acquisition of a Hydraulic Press. (Id. ¶ 3.) On February 17, 2014, Hutchinson issued a purchase order to Erie for one Hydraulic Press. (Id.¶ 5.) The parties agreed that Hutchinson would make partial progress payments to Erie and that the Hydraulic Press would be delivered by Erie during the week of July 1, 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 5-7.) The payments made by Hutchinson totaled $85, 887.50. (Id. ¶ 5.) To this day, Erie has failed to deliver the Hydraulic Press. (Id. ¶ 9.)

         On March 11, 2016, Hutchinson filed this action to recover the cost of the progress payments. (ECF No. 1.) John Nowak, the President and CEO of Erie was served with the Complaint via certified mail on March 24, 2016. (Turner Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 15-3.) On April 27, 2016 Hutchinson requested an Entry of Default against Erie. The Clerk entered Default on April 28, 2014. (ECF Nos. 11, 13.) Hutchinson moved for an Entry of Default Judgment on June 13, 2016. That motion is now before the Court for consideration.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) authorizes a district court to enter a default judgment after the Clerk enters a default under Rule 55(a). Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Upon entry of default, the defendant’s liability generally is conclusively established, and the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true. Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917- 19 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)).

         In exercising its discretion, a court must consider several factors (the “Eitel Factors”), including: (1) the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the defendant’s 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).

         IV. DISCUSSION

         A. Procedural Requirements

         Before a court can enter a default judgment against a defendant, the plaintiff must satisfy the procedural requirements set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(c) and 55, as well as Local Rule 55-1. Local Rule 55-1 requires that the movant submit a declaration establishing: (1) when and against which party the default was entered; (2) identification of the pleading to which the default was entered; (3) whether the defaulting party is a minor, incompetent person, or active service member; and (4) that the defaulting party was properly served with notice if required. Vogel v. Rite Aid Corp., 992 F.Supp.2d 998, 1006 (C.D. Cal. 2014).

         Hutchinson has satisfied these requirements. Hutchinson’s counsel submitted a declaration establishing that: (1) an entry of Default was entered by the Clerk against Erie on April 28, 2016 (Turner Decl. ¶ 7) and (2) Erie is not a minor, incompetent person, or active service member. (Id. ¶ 9.) Hutchinson is not required to serve Erie with notice because Erie has not yet appeared in the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). Lastly, Hutchinson has complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) by requesting a remedy not different in kind from that prayed for in the Complaint. (Mot. for Default J., 8.) Hutchinson has thus complied with the procedural prerequisites for an entry of a default judgment.

         B. E ...


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.