Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
BMO Harris Bank, N.A. sued CRS Transport, Inc. and an individual co-defendant in the Eastern District of California for breach of contract arising from several Loan and Security Agreements. The defendants did not answer, and default was entered against them. The bank then moved for default judgment, and a magistrate judge held proceedings on the motion on June 26 and July 17, 2026.
In Findings and Recommendations issued September 30, 2026, the magistrate judge found that the bank complied with the service requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a breach of contract claim, and that the bank submitted evidence supporting its damages. Weighing the factors from Eitel v. McCool, the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, awarding possession of five identified refrigerated vans, and awarding $335,689.67 in damages plus post-judgment interest.
On fees, the magistrate judge found counsel's $325 hourly rate reasonable. The request began at 13.25 hours, including two hours of anticipated time on the pending motion, but only 11.20 hours were supported by counsel's declaration. At the July hearing, counsel said he no longer sought fees for time on the pending motion and that an extra .05 hour in the reported total was a typographical error. The magistrate judge recommended fees for 11.20 hours and costs of $1,151.14, covering the filing fee and service of process.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge's findings were served on the parties, who were told that objections were due within 14 days and that failing to object might waive certain rights on appeal. No objections were filed. Citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court stated that it performed a de novo review, concluded the findings were supported by the record and proper analysis, and adopted them in full.
The court granted the default judgment motion in part. It awarded the bank $335,689.67 in damages plus post-judgment interest, and interest at the contracted rates for the identified agreements. It granted fees and costs in the modified amount of $3,640.00 in attorney fees and $1,151.14 in costs, a total of $4,791.14.
The court also awarded the bank possession of five refrigerated vans identified by vehicle and serial numbers, and ordered the defendants to return them or permit the bank to take possession. After recovering and selling the vans in a commercially reasonable manner, the bank must credit the net sale proceeds toward the money judgment. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the bank and against the defendants and to close the case. The order does not identify any part of the motion that was denied.
Key Takeaways
- The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations in full after no objections were filed within the 14-day period, and it described its own review as de novo.
- The magistrate judge's conclusions on service, the sufficiency of the complaint, and the Eitel factors supported default judgment, and the award rests on those findings rather than on contested merits rulings.
- Fees were set at 11.20 hours at $325 per hour, or $3,640.00, after anticipated motion time was excluded and counsel acknowledged a typographical error in the hours total.
- The bank receives possession of five vans, but net proceeds from their commercially reasonable sale must be credited against the $335,689.67 award, so the amount ultimately collected depends on that sale.
- The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case, so the order resolves the action at the district court level.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendations in an unopposed default case. It is not a published opinion and carries no precedential weight. Its value is as an example of how an Eastern District of California court handles default judgment for a secured lender, including scrutiny of fee hours even though the defendants did not participate.
Several matters remain outside the order. It sets no deadline or mechanism for surrender of the vans, and the final shortfall will depend on sale proceeds credited later. Because the defendants never answered or objected, the order does not test any defense to liability or damages.