Ameris Bank v. 2 Sons Trucking LLC

Ameris Bank · United States District Court for the Central District of California · May 21, 2025 · No. 8:24-cv-02268-CAS-ADSx

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Ameris Bank's motion for default judgment against 2 Sons Trucking LLC and Willie Hall. The court found that the Eitel factors supported default judgment on claims for breach of an equipment financing agreement and guaranty. The court awarded $193,108.95 in compensatory damages, $14,071.40 in prejudgment interest, $7,462.17 in attorney fees, and $655.00 in costs.

Holdings

  1. Default judgment was appropriate because all Eitel factors favored entry of judgment: plaintiff would otherwise lack a remedy, the claims were adequately pleaded, the amount sought was related to defendants' contractual misconduct, a factual dispute was unlikely, excusable neglect was unlikely after proper service, and defendants' failure to appear made a merits decision impractical.
  2. Ameris Bank adequately pleaded that 2 Sons breached the equipment financing agreement and that Hall breached the guaranty.
  3. Ameris Bank was entitled to $193,108.95 in compensatory damages for the remaining monthly payments due under the equipment financing agreement and guaranty.
  4. Ameris Bank was entitled to prejudgment interest at 10 percent per annum from August 23, 2024, through May 15, 2025, totaling $14,071.40.
  5. Ameris Bank was entitled to $7,462.17 in attorney fees and $655.00 in costs.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Eitel factors favored entry of default judgment against defendants who were served but failed to appear.
  2. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded breach-of-contract claims based on the equipment financing agreement and guaranty.
  3. Whether the plaintiff proved compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs recoverable on default judgment.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (32)

  • Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enters. Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 916, 920 (C.D. Cal. 2010)(followed)
  • PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1175-77 (C.D. Cal. 2002)(followed)
  • Seiko Epson Corp. v. Prinko Image Co. (USA), 2018 WL 6264988, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2018)(followed)
  • Bd. of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers v. Moak, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156381, 2012 WL 5379565, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2012)(followed)
  • Cathcart, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19998, 2010 WL 1048829, at *4(followed)
  • Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978)(followed)
  • Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811, 821 (2011)(followed)
  • CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1239 (2008)(followed)
  • Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. v. S. W. Solar, Inc., 2022 WL 3574413, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2022)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 32.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…