United States District Court, C.D. California
OGIO INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ETHOS USA, INC.
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(Filed April 7, 2017, Dkt. 14)
November 15, 2016, plaintiff Ogio International, Inc.
(“Ogio”) filed this action against defendant
Ethos USA, Inc., doing business as Ethos Management Group
(“Ethos”). Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”). Ogio
alleges that Ethos purchased golf bags and backpacks
manufactured by Ogio for $230, 567 (“the Goods”),
the Goods were delivered and accepted, Ogio issued invoices
to Ethos for the purchases, and Ethos failed to pay the
invoices. Ogio seeks recovery of the $230, 567 purchase price
for the Goods, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
has not appeared in this action. On January 24, 2016, Ogio
filed an ex parte application for service by publication.
Dkt. 8. In its application, Ogio explained that it had
exercised due diligence, but had been unable to personally
serve Ethos with the Complaint. Id. The Court
granted the application and directed Ogio to serve Ethos via
publication in The Orange Coast Daily Pilot for four
successive weeks. Dkt. 9. Upon compliance, Ogio was directed
to provide proof of compliance by providing a return of
service detailing its compliance. Id. On February
23, 2017, Ogio filed proof of service in compliance with the
Court's order. Dkt. 10. Ethos failed to file an answer or
otherwise respond to service.
March 31, 2017, the clerk entered default against Ethos. Dkt.
13. On April 7, 2017, Ogio filed the instant motion for
default judgment against Ethos. Dkt. 14
(“Motion”). To date, Ethos has not appeared in
this matter. Consistent with the local rules, plaintiff
scheduled the instant motion for a hearing on May 8, 2017, at
10:00 a.m. and stated that hearing date and time on
plaintiff's notice of motion. Dkt. 14. During the
Court's motions calendar on May 8, 2017, neither
plaintiff nor defendant appeared on the matter. Accordingly,
the Court took the matter under submission.
a Utah corporation that designs and manufactures bags,
backpacks, and luggage. Complaint ¶ 2. Ethos is a
California corporation in the business of wholesale and
retail sporting equipment, supplies, and accessories.
Id. ¶ 3.
February 18 and February 19, 2014, Ogio shipped bags to Ethos
for a total price of $230, 567. Id. ¶ 7. Ogio
issued invoices to Ethos for the bags and payment for the
Goods was due between March 20 and 21, 2014. Id.
¶ 8. Ethos received the Goods and its designee accepted
delivery. Id. ¶ 10. Ethos also received the
Invoices. Id. ¶ 14. Ogio alleges that Ethos has
acknowledged in writing that it is liable for the price of
the Goods. Id. ¶ 17. Ethos has never paid for
the Goods. Id. ¶ 16.
or denying a motion for default judgment is a matter within
the court's discretion. Elektra Entertainment Group,
Inc. v. Bryant, 2004 WL 783123, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13,
2004); see also Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. v.
Elias, 2004 WL 141959, *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2004). The
Ninth Circuit has directed that courts consider the following
factors in deciding whether to enter default judgment: (1)
the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff; (2) the merits of
plaintiff's substantive claims; (3) the sufficiency of
the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action;
(5) the possibility of a dispute concerning the material
facts; (6) whether defendant's default was the product of
excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy favoring
decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782
F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Bryant,
2004 WL 783123 at *1-2.
initial matter, Ogio has complied with the procedural
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and
Local Rule 55-1. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to
evaluate the Eitel factors.
Possibility of ...