Obelisk Capital Management Limited v. Precise Global Trade, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 OBELISK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT Case No. 2:21-cv-01099 8 LIMITED (in Official Liquidation) a Cayman Islands Registered Company, ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 PRECISE GLOBAL TRADE, LLC, a Nevada 12 Company 13 Defendant. 14 15 Upon the motion of Obelisk Capital Management Limited (in Official Liquidation) 16 (“Plaintiff”) and the supplemental briefing thereto (ECF No. 24) for entry of an order pursuant 17 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) for entry of a final judgment of default against Precise 18 Global Trade, LLC, a Nevada Company (“Defendant”) and the Court having found that it has 19 personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and the subject matter of this action; venue being proper 20 in the District of Nevada; and there being due, sufficient and proper notice of the Motion having 21 been provided under the circumstances and the Defendant having failed to respond to the 22 Complaint (ECF No. 1) or appear in opposition to the Motion before the expiration of the extended 23 deadline set by the Court (ECF No. 13); and it appearing that no other or further notice need be 24 provided; and by virtue of its default, and the failures of the Defendant to respond to the 25 Complaint (ECF No. 1), the Defendant is deemed to have admitted the allegations of the 26 Complaint, and liability is established against it. 27 Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order, issued on April 5, 2023, Plaintiff provided 28 Supplemental Briefing. The Court finds it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Based on a 1 review of the record, the Court finds that Defendant was organized under the laws of Nevada at 2 the time that the contract was entered into in 2019 and remains formed in the state even though its 3 entity status has since been revoked. Defendant is a Limited Liability Company (“LLC”) that was 4 organized under the laws of Nevada in 2016 and has never filed a certificate of closure or 5 dissolution or an application that it was operating as a foreign corporation in Nevada. The 6 “Termination” date listed on the Secretary of State’s website is “perpetual.” The governing 7 contract, which Defendant signed in 2019, lists Defendant’s LLC as “a company incorporated in 8 Nevada.” Plaintiff’s performance under the contract also occurred in 2019. Accordingly, the Court 9 also finds that the District of Nevada is an appropriate forum for this case. 10 Based on the contract's choice-of-law provision, Section 11.1, the Court finds Cayman law 11 to govern interpretation of the contract. See Ferdie Sievers & Lake Tahoe Land Co. v. Diversified 12 Mortgage Investors, 95 Nev. 811, 815 (1979) (Nevada law honors the expressed intention of the 13 parties as to the applicable law in the construction of a contract if the parties “acted in good faith 14 and not to evade the law of the real situs of the contract.”). The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled 15 to the damages ordered herein pursuant to those laws and the language of the subject contract. 16 Under Cayman law, compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest are all 17 available. In diversity actions, the law of the contract determines the rate of prejudgment interest, 18 and post- judgment interest is governed by federal law. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United Computer 19 Sys., Inc., 98 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th Cir. 1996). 20 Under Cayman law, the Court may “in the exercise of its discretion ... order the payment 21 of simple interest upon any debt or damages at a rate not exceeding the rate applicable to the 22 relevant currency prescribed in the Schedule hereto.” Judgment Debts (Rates of Interest) Rules 23 (2021 Revision). For damages in U.S. dollars, the pre-judgment interest rate is two and three- 24 eighths percent. See id. at Schedule 12. Since the rules are silent on when that interest begins to 25 accrue, the Court will follow Nevada law wherein the interest accrues -- “from the time of service 26 of the summons and complaint.” NRS § 17.130. The summons was returned executed on June 14, 27 2021 and therefore prejudgment interest will accrue from this date. The Court having found and 28 determined that the relief requested in the Motion and Supplemental Briefing thereto is just and proper; and that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Motion establish just cause for the relief 2 granted herein; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefore, 3 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT: 5 1. Plaintiffs Motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) (ECF Nos. 6 12, 15) for entry of a final judgment of default against Defendant are GRANTED. 7 2. The Court awards judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff: 8 9 a. Inthe amount of $185,000.00; 10 b. Prejudgment interest accruing from the time of service of the summons 11 and complaint, June 14, 2021, through the date of this order and 12 judgment, January 22, 2024. 13 c. Post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 14 15 d. Costs to be determined by a Bill of Costs. 16 3. Plaintiff shall have until February 21, 2024 to provide the Court with a 17 prejudgment interest calculation consistent with this Order. 18 19 DATED: January 22, 2024. 20 aS 22 Sitdapny punduapun RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 -3-