BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Harjit Singh

BMO Harris Bank · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · June 13, 2025 · No. 1:24-cv-01517-JLT-HBK

Summary

The document contains Findings and Recommendations by a United States magistrate judge recommending that BMO Bank N.A.’s motion for default judgment be granted against Harjit Singh. The recommendation addresses jurisdiction, service, the Eitel factors, breach of contract, monetary damages, attorney’s fees and costs, post-default interest, and possession of two commercial vehicles securing the loans. It recommends monetary damages of $115,098.37, attorney’s fees of $3,575.00, costs of $805.18, contractual daily interest, and recovery of the vehicles, subject to a 14-day objection period.

Holdings

  1. Defendant was properly served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and applicable California service law, permitting consideration of default judgment.
  2. The court had diversity subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over Singh.
  3. All six Eitel factors favored entry of default judgment because Defendant was properly served, failed to appear, Plaintiff's well-pleaded contract claim was meritorious, the requested amount was supported by the agreements and evidence, no factual dispute was apparent, and excusable neglect was not shown.
  4. Plaintiff should receive $115,098.37 in contractual damages, contractual daily interest after April 22, 2025 until final judgment, $3,575.00 in attorney's fees, $805.18 in costs, and possession of the two unrecovered vehicles, with the judgment credited by net sale proceeds.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Defendant was properly served so that default judgment could be entered.
  2. Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction based on complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, and personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
  3. Whether the six Eitel factors supported entry of default judgment.
  4. Whether Plaintiff proved its breach of contract claim and the requested monetary and equitable relief.
  5. What amount of contractual damages, post-default interest, attorney's fees, costs, and possession of collateral should be awarded.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (31)

  • Mason v. Genisco Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • Yoon Chul Yoo v. Arnold, 615 F. App'x 868, 870 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Strojnik v. JW World Enterprises, Inc. Best W. Bakersfield N., 2021 WL 22137, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2021)(followed)
  • Wecosign, Inc. v. IFG Holdings, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1072, 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2012)(followed)
  • Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
  • Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
  • Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 414-16 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 927 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 31.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…