BMO Bank N.A. v. Kular Transportation Inc
1:24-cv-01568
E.D. Cal.May 28, 2025Background
- BMO Bank N.A. financed Kular Transportation Inc.’s purchase of vehicles under three separate loan agreements, each personally guaranteed by Lakhwinder Singh, Kular’s principal.
- Kular defaulted on the agreements by failing to make required payments starting in June and July 2024, leading to acceleration of the full debt amounts plus interest, late fees, and costs.
- Despite formal notice of default and demands for payment and return of collateral, defendants did not respond nor surrender all the collateral vehicles.
- BMO filed suit, seeking damages, specific performance (repossession), and attorney’s fees; defendants failed to appear or respond, resulting in entry of default.
- BMO moved for default judgment, providing evidence of damages and the unrecovered collateral, and seeking attorney’s fees, costs, and possession of the remaining vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BMO is entitled to default judgment | Defendants defaulted; BMO fulfilled procedural steps | No response/no appearance | Yes; default judgment appropriate |
| Proper service of process | All required parties were duly served | No response | Service was proper |
| Entitlement to damages and possession | Agreements/guaranties entitle BMO to full debt, fees | No response | Full damages and specific performance |
| Reasonableness of attorney’s fees | Claimed hourly rate and time were reasonable and supported | No response | Fees were reduced to supported hours |
Key Cases Cited
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (discussing standards and discretion for granting default judgment)
- Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2012) (factual allegations in complaint taken as true on default)
- Mason v. Genisco Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849 (9th Cir. 1992) (service of process prerequisites for default)
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (court’s discretion to grant default judgment)
- Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (limits on what is admitted by default)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (Eitel factors governing default judgment analysis)