United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. George United States District Judge
Rational FT Enterprises moves for a default judgment (ECF No.
#20) against defendant Erick Allen Lindgren. Defendant, who
has never appeared in this matter, has not filed an
opposition. Having considered the pleadings, moving papers
and the record, the Court will grant the motion.
filed its complaint against Defendant on January 30, 2015,
alleging claims for breach of quasi-contract, unjust
enrichment, and conversion. Defendant was personally served
on February 3, 2015. Defendant did not file an answer or
otherwise appear. Plaintiff requested that the Clerk of the
Court enter a default on February 27, 2015. The default was
entered on March 3, 2015.
March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed its first motion for default
judgment. Plaintiff served a copy of its application on
Defendant. Defendant did not respond.
filed a notice of Defendant's bankruptcy filing on June
29, 2015. As this matter was automatically stayed, the Court
denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice.
12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice that Defendant's
bankruptcy proceeding had been dismissed. The Court lifted
the stay of this proceeding on June 15, 2017. Plaintiff
renewed its Motion for Default Judgment on June 20, 2017.
Plaintiff served a copy of its application on Defendant.
Defendant did not respond.
Ninth Circuit has identified the following factors which may
be considered by a district court in exercising discretion
whether to enter a default judgment:
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the
merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the
sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake
in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning
material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable
neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.
Court begins by considering Plaintiff's complaint and the
merits of its substantive claims. “[T]his court must
take the well-pleaded factual allegations of Cynthia's
cross-complaint as true.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co.
of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992).
“However, it follows from this that facts which are not
established by the pleadings of the prevailing party, or
claims which are not well-pleaded, are not binding and cannot
support the judgment.” Danning v. Lavine, 572
F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978).
Nevada law, "'[t]he essential elements of
quasi-contract are a benefit conferred on the defendant by
the plaintiff, appreciation by the defendant of such benefit,
and acceptance and retention by the defendant of such benefit
under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for him
to retain the benefit without payment of the value
thereof.'" Unionamerica Mortgage & Equity
Trust v. McDonald, 97 Nev. 210, 212, 626 P.2d 1272, 1273
(1981) (quoting Dass v. Epplen, 162 Colo. 60, 424
P.2d 779, 780 (Colo. 1967)). “Unjust enrichment occurs
whenever a person has and retains a benefit which in equity
and good conscience belongs to another.” Id.
Under Nevada law, conversion is "a distinct act of
dominion wrongfully exerted over another's personal
property in denial of, or inconsistent with his title or
rights therein or in derogation, exclusion, or defiance of
such title or rights." Evans v. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc., 116 Nev. 598, 606, 5 P.3d 1043, 1048
complaint, Plaintiff alleges that its
predecessor-in-interest, Full Tilt Poker, erroneously
deposited $2, 000, 000 in Defendant's bank account.
Officers of Full Tilt Poker requested Defendant to return the
erroneous deposit. Defendant did not and has not returned the
addition, Full Tilt Poker advanced $531, 807 to Defendant.
Full Tilt Poker requested repayment of the $531, 807 that was
loaned to Defendant. Defendant did not repay, and has not
repaid, the loan. Full Tilt Poker assigned its entire right,
title and interest in its claims against Defendant to
amount of money at issue is substantial. However, that amount
of money also reflects the benefit that was erroneously
conferred upon Defendant which Defendant did not return and
the amount of money that was loaned to Defendant which
Defendant did not repay. Plaintiff has not sought damages
other than the repayment of funds ...