Summary
The document contains findings and recommendations in an action by Happy CP Company Limited to confirm a Hong Kong arbitration award against LB Accessories LLC and Megan Castillo. The magistrate judge recommends granting default judgment and entering joint and several judgment for $204,988.69, while denying without prejudice the request for litigation attorney’s fees and costs because the required supporting submissions were not provided.
Holdings
- Default judgment was appropriate because respondents were properly served, failed to appear, and the Eitel factors favored judgment for petitioner.
- The arbitration award should be confirmed under the New York Convention because it arose from a commercial relationship involving a Hong Kong company and respondents did not establish any Convention defense.
- Petitioner established entitlement to a total award of $204,988.69 under the arbitration award.
- The request for attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the federal action should be denied without prejudice because petitioner failed to comply with the applicable fee-affidavit and bill-of-costs requirements.
Questions Presented
- Whether respondents' failure to appear and defend warranted entry of default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and the Eitel factors.
- Whether the arbitration award was subject to confirmation under the New York Convention and Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act.
- Whether petitioner established the amount of damages awarded in the arbitration.
- Whether petitioner was entitled at that stage to attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the federal confirmation action.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (20)
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002)(followed)
- Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal. 2003)(followed)
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 431, 432 (C.D. Cal. 1999)(followed)
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)(followed)
- Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 42 F.4th 1131, 1133 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 20.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…