Thayer v. Sawyer
5:24-cv-01749
N.D. Cal.Feb 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Matthew Thayer and Defendant Mark Sawyer entered into a settlement agreement on February 9, 2024, under which Sawyer was to pay Thayer $603,000 in scheduled installments.
- Sawyer made only a single $50,000 payment and then failed to make any further payments as required by the settlement.
- Thayer alleged breach of contract and filed suit on March 21, 2024; Sawyer failed to appear or respond to the complaint.
- The Clerk entered default against Sawyer on July 11, 2024.
- An initial motion for default judgment was denied without prejudice due to lack of proof of personal jurisdiction; Thayer then filed a renewed motion for default judgment with additional evidence supporting personal jurisdiction.
- The court granted Thayer’s renewed motion for default judgment for $553,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Jurisdiction | Sawyer had minimum contacts with CA—CA business, license, address, etc. | None (no response) | Court had specific personal jurisdiction |
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Diversity) | Parties are diverse; amount in controversy exceeds $75K | None | Court had diversity jurisdiction |
| Proper Service | Sawyer was properly served at home in Nevada after diligent attempts | None | Service was effective and timely |
| Breach of Contract and Damages | All elements met: contract, performance, breach, damages; seeks $553,000 | None | Met all factors; default judgment granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (describing discretion for default judgment)
- Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1986) (pleaded facts taken as true on default)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (standards for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (contractual activities can establish jurisdiction)
- Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811 (2011) (elements of breach of contract in California)
- Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (default liability standards)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (seven-factor test for default judgment)