USA Truck, Inc. v. Jugan Express Inc.
1:20-cv-00158
E.D. Cal.May 5, 2020Background
- USA Truck, Inc. sues under the Carmack Amendment claiming Jugan Express accepted a written request to transport a wine shipment from Ripon, CA to Las Vegas, NV and that the $34,210.26 shipment was lost or stolen while in Jugan’s possession.
- Jugan Express did not answer or otherwise appear; the clerk entered default on March 24, 2020.
- Plaintiff moved for default judgment on March 25, 2020 seeking $39,852.73; at a May 4, 2020 hearing counsel sought an additional $212.50 in fees and $66 in interest, for a total of $40,131.23.
- Service was effected by a registered California process server who left the summons and complaint with the person apparently in charge at Jugan’s office and mailed copies thereafter (Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.20); the court found service proper.
- The magistrate applied the Eitel factors and Carmack Amendment framework, concluded the complaint states a meritorious claim and that default judgment is appropriate, and recommended entry of judgment for $40,131.23 and dismissal of all Doe defendants.
- The magistrate ordered all other case deadlines vacated and provided 14 days to object to the findings and recommendations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of service | Service by registered server plus mailing complied with Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.20 | No appearance or opposition from Jugan | Service was proper; personal jurisdiction satisfied for default judgment |
| Whether to enter default judgment (Eitel factors) | Default judgment is necessary for recovery; Eitel factors favor relief | No response from Jugan (no show of excusable neglect or defense) | Default judgment warranted; Eitel factors favor plaintiff |
| Liability under the Carmack Amendment | Carmack imposes strict liability on the receiving/delivering carrier for lost shipment | No responsive argument from Jugan | Claim is meritorious under Carmack; allegations taken as true after default |
| Damages amount and dismissal of Doe defendants | Seeks $40,131.23 (loss + interest + costs + fees) and dismissal of Doe defendants if judgment granted | No response from Jugan | Recommend awarding $40,131.23 and dismissing all Doe defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (default-judgment entry is discretionary)
- Omni Capital Int’l., Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1987) (service of process prerequisite to personal jurisdiction)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors guiding district court's exercise of discretion on default judgments)
- Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977) (after default, complaint allegations are taken as true except as to damages)
- Pac. Indem. Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 642 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2011) (Carmack Amendment imposes strict liability on receiving/delivering carriers)
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (policy favoring merits does not preclude default judgment when defendant fails to appear)