BASF Corporation v. Premier Bodyworks, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BASF CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-01450-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 PREMIER BODYWORKS, INC., et al. (Doc. 18) 15 Defendants. 16 17 BASF Corporation filed a complaint against Premier Body Works, Inc., and Mark 18 Villanueva1. (Doc. 1). The plaintiff filed proofs of service (Docs. 7-8). The defendants did not 19 respond to the complaint, and the Clerk of the Court entered default. 20 Three months later, the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (Doc. 12). The 21 defendants have not opposed the motion. The assigned magistrate judge convened a hearing on 22 the motion via videoconference on August 17, 2023. (Doc. 17). Attorney Bobbie Bailey 23 appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and Villanueva appeared on behalf of himself and separately 24 noted his status as owner of Premier Bodyworks. Id. Randy A. Tucker appeared and provided 25 sworn testimony as a witness for Plaintiff. Id. 26 27 1 Throughout the filings, Mr. Villanueva’s name is spelled “Viallanueva” or “Villanueva.” Because it appears he 1 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the plaintiff’s 2 motion for default judgment be granted. (Doc. 18). The Court found the plaintiff had established 3 the defendants breached a valid contract, and the plaintiff was due $25,550.00 in expectation 4 damages and $77,000.00 in liquidated damages. Id. 5 The Court served the findings and recommendations at an address Mr. Villanueva 6 confirmed was his address. (Docs. 17, 18 at 4). The findings and recommendations advised the 7 defendants that they must file any objections within 14 days after service of the order and that the 8 “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 9 Court’s order.” (Doc. 18 at 17-18) (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 10 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). The defendants did not file 11 objections or any other response to the findings and recommendations, and the deadline to do so 12 has passed. 13 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 14 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, this Court concludes the 15 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, 16 the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The September 8, 2023, findings and recommendations (Doc. 18) are ADOPTED IN 18 FULL. 19 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 12) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 20 IN PART as follows: 21 a. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED to the extent of its breach of contract claims 22 against Defendants and DENIED to the extent of Plaintiffs unjust enrichment and 23 declaratory relief claims against Defendants; and 24 b. Plaintiff is awarded $25,550.00 in expectation damages as to the loaned 25 equipment, and $77,000.00 in liquidated damages against Defendants. 26 /// 27 /// 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: _ September 28, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28