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.

TBK Bank, SSB v. Singh

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 23, 2018

TBK BANK, SSB, a Texas State Savings Bank, Plaintiff,
v.
NAVDEEP KAUR SINGH; and DAVE SINGH, Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 12)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff TBK BANK, SSB, a Texas State Savings Bank, (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for default judgment against Defendants Navdeep Kaur Singh and Dave Singh. No opposition was filed.

         The motion was referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The Court deemed the matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and vacated the hearing scheduled for November 3, 2017. Having considered the moving papers and the Court's file, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment be GRANTED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Navdeep Kaur Singh and Dave Singh conduct business at RDX, Inc. in Fresno, California. Doc. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 2, 3. RDX, Inc. filed bankruptcy on June 28, 2017, and is not a party to this action. Id. at ¶ 7. According to the complaint, on March 21, 2016, Plaintiff loaned RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh $1, 987, 336.71 pursuant to a Loan and Security Agreement (“LSA 1”). Pursuant to the terms of LSA 1, RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh were required to make 36 monthly payments of $60, 954.06 beginning on June 1, 2016 (“Loan 1”). Id. at ¶ 9 and Ex. 1. Plaintiff was granted a security interest in the vehicles set forth in Schedule A to LSA 1 (“LSA 1 Vehicles”). Plaintiff also was granted a blanket lien on all personal property assets of both RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh. Id. at ¶ 10.

         Subsequent to the execution of LSA 1, on February 23, 2017, Plaintiff, RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh entered into an extension to LSA 1 (“Extension”). Pursuant to the Extension, RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh agreed to pay the unpaid balance due on LSA 1 in thirty-one (31) consecutive monthly installments beginning on April 1, 2017, in the amount of $61, 636.47 and a final installment of the unpaid principal balance plus interest due under the terms of LSA 1. Id. at ¶ 11 and Ex. 2. RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh failed to make the monthly payment due for the month of April 2017, and each and every month thereafter. Further, RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh have defaulted pursuant to the terms of LSA 2 discussed below by failing to make the payments when due, as well as failing to keep the personal property described in LSA 2 insured. Additionally, Navdeep Kaur Singh has defaulted pursuant to his Guaranty of LSA 2. Demand has been made upon RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh to make all payments due and cure all defaults, but RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh have failed to do so. Id. at ¶ 13.

         In connection with Loan 1, Defendant Dave Singh executed an Unconditional Guaranty (“Guaranty 1”) individually obligating him to pay all sums due and payable to Plaintiff owed by RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh. Id. at ¶ 18. Demand has been made upon RDX, Inc., Navdeep Kaur Singh and Dave Singh to pay all sums due to Plaintiff and cure all defaults pursuant to LSA 1, but Dave Singh has failed to do so. Id. at ¶ 20.

         On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff made a loan to RDX, Inc. pursuant to a Loan and Security Agreement (“LSA 2”). Pursuant to the terms of LSA 2, RDX, Inc. was to make 60 monthly installments at $11, 549.10 beginning on September 5, 2016, and one installment payment of $142, 222.56 (“Loan 2”). Id. at ¶ 24 and Ex. 4. Plaintiff was granted a lien on other vehicles set forth in Schedule A to LSA 2. Plaintiff also was granted a lien on all other personal property collateral. Id. at ¶ 25.

         RDX, Inc. failed to make the monthly payment for June 2017. Plaintiff alleges that RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh's default on LSA 1 also constitutes an event of default under the terms of LSA 2. Further, no insurance exists on the LSA 2 vehicles, which also is an event of default. Demand has been made on RDX, Inc. to make all payments and comply with the terms of LSA 2, but has failed to do so. Id. at ¶ 27.

         In connection with Plaintiff making Loan 2 to RDX, Inc., Navdeep Kaur Singh executed an Unconditional Guaranty (“Guaranty 2”) individually obligating him to pay all sums due to Plaintiff owed by RDX, Inc. Id. at ¶ 30 and Ex. 5. Demand has been made on RDX, Inc. and Navdeep Kaur Singh to pay all sums due to Plaintiff, but Navdeep Kaur Singh has failed to do so. Id. at ¶ 32.

         In connection with Plaintiff making Loan 2 to RDX, Inc., Dave Singh also executed an Unconditional Guaranty (“Guaranty 3”) individually obligating him to pall all sums due and payable to Plaintiff owed by RDX, Inc. Id. at ¶ 36 and Ex. 6. Demand has been made on RDX, Inc. and Dave Singh to pay all sums due to Plaintiff, but Dave Singh has failed to do so. Id. at ¶ 38.

         Plaintiff filed the underlying action on June 29, 2017, asserting two causes of action against Defendant Navdeep Kaur Singh for breach of loan and security agreement and for breach of guaranty, and asserting two causes of action against Defendant Dave Singh for breach of unconditional guaranty. Doc. 1. Plaintiff served both Defendant Navdeep Kaur Singh and Defendant Dave Singh by substituted service on July 12, 2017. Docs. 4, 5, Proofs of Service. Defendants did not respond to the complaint, and on August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. Doc. 6. On the same day, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendants Navdeep Kaur Singh and Dave Singh. Docs. 7, 8. Thereafter, on October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for default judgment. Doc. 12. Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants Navdeep Kaur Singh and Dave Singh, jointly and severally, in the total sum of $1, 805, 529.79.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a plaintiff can apply to the court for a default judgment against a defendant that has failed to plead or otherwise defend against the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). “Upon default, the well-pleaded allegations of a complaint relating to liability are taken as true.” Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983); TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

         Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of a default judgment include: (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 underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002)

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Service of Process Plaintiff is suing two individuals in this action, Navdeep Kaur Singh and Dave Singh. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 sets forth the requirements for serving an individual within a judicial district of the United States. Pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1), an individual may be served by following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located. Under California law, if a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the individual, a summons may be served as follows:

by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.

         Cal. Code Civ. P. 415.20(b).

         According to the proofs of service on file in this case, the process server attempted personal delivery of the summons and complaint on both Defendant Navdeep Kaur Singh and Defendant Dave Singh on three separate occasions-July 6, 2017, July 10, 2017 and July 12, 2017. Doc. No. 4 at p. 4; Doc. No. 5 at p. 4. On the third attempt, the process server left copies of the summonses and complaint with the office manager at Defendants' usual place of business. Thereafter, copies of the summonses and complaint were mailed to the Defendants at their usual place of business. Doc. No. 4 at pp. 4-5; Doc. No. 5 at pp. 4-5. The Court finds that Defendants were properly served under California law.

         B. The Eitel Factors Weigh in Favor of Default Judgment

         As discussed below, the Court finds that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment.

         1. Possibility of Prejudice to Plaintiff

         The first factor considers whether a plaintiff would suffer prejudice if default judgment is not entered. See PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F.Supp.2d at 1177. Generally, where default has been entered against a defendant, a plaintiff has no other means by which to recover damages. Id.; Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Allstate Beauty Prods., 847 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1200-01 (C.D. Cal. 2012). Therefore, the Court finds ...


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.