Furia v. Hirsch
2:19-cv-00942
E.D. Cal.Jul 10, 2020Background:
- Furia sued multiple defendants alleging conversion of over $300,000 from his bank account; he alleges McGrew and Hirsch transferred $100,000 by cashier’s check to PurHydro, LLC.
- McGrew later executed a declaration disclaiming any interest in the funds and stating Hirsch persuaded her to withdraw the money and that $100,000 was sent to PurHydro; Furia and McGrew then settled and dismissed claims against each other.
- Hirsch consistently denied claiming the converted funds and said she had no control over PurHydro or authority to interplead the funds.
- Bank records trace a $100,000 cashier’s check dated April 26, 2019 into PurHydro’s JP Morgan Chase account; that account is subject to a TRO and some funds were later deposited in the court registry.
- PurHydro was served at its registered agent but never answered or appeared; the clerk entered default on July 23, 2019, and Furia moved for default judgment on June 5, 2020.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is default judgment appropriate against PurHydro? | PurHydro was served, failed to appear, and Furia would be prejudiced without relief. | PurHydro made no appearance or argument. | Default judgment on liability is appropriate under Eitel factors. |
| Does the complaint state a meritorious conversion claim? | Furia owned the $100,000, it can be specifically identified and traced to PurHydro, and McGrew disclaimed the funds. | PurHydro did not respond. | Conversion claim is meritorious and sufficiently pleaded. |
| What damages and interest are recoverable? | Seek return of $100,000 plus prejudgment interest from April 26, 2019. | No opposition submitted. | Award principal $100,000 plus prejudgment interest at 7% per annum from April 26, 2019 to judgment. |
| Was the default excusable or should the case be decided on the merits? | Nonappearance is unexplained and prejudicial; other parties’ statements support Furia’s claim. | No contesting argument presented. | Default not due to excusable neglect; policy favoring merits does not overcome other Eitel factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors governing default-judgment discretion)
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (default judgment not automatic; Eitel analysis)
- Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (well‑pleaded allegations taken as true after default)
- Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (insufficient claims/facts are not established by default)
- Lee v. Hanley, 61 Cal.4th 1225 (Cal. 2015) (elements of conversion under California law)
- Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 513 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2008) (state law governs prejudgment interest in diversity cases)
- Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1978) (sufficiency of allegations in default-judgment context)
- Elektra Entm't Group Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (no genuine issue of material fact after default)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (consideration of damages amount in Eitel analysis)