Fox's Spokane Denture Clinic Inc et al v. Novel Technologies Inc, No. 2:2021cv00080 - Document 20 (E.D. Wash. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 14 MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Case is CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (LAS, Case Administrator)

Download PDF
Fox's Spokane Denture Clinic Inc et al v. Novel Technologies Inc Doc. 20 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 Apr 22, 2022 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 FOX’S SPOKANE DENTURE CLINIC, 10 INC., a Washington corporation; No. 2:21-CV-00080-SAB 11 MARICONDIA DENTAL, 12 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION d/b/a ORDER GRANTING MOTION 13 A.Q. DENTURE AND DENTAL FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 IMPLANT CENTER, a Nevada 15 professional corporation, 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a 19 IVORY DIGITAL DENTURES, a 20 Canadian corporation, Defendant. 21 22 23 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment Against 24 Defendant Novel Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Ivory Digital Dentures, ECF No. 14. 25 The motion was considered without oral argument. Plaintiffs are represented by 26 Caleb Hatch and Robert Carlson. Defendant has not appeared in this case. 27 // 28 // ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT # 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Having reviewed the briefing and the case law, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ 2 motion. 3 Background 4 The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1. 5 Plaintiffs Fox’s Spokane Denture Clinic, Inc. (“Fox’s Spokane”) and 6 Maricondia Dental, Professional Corporation d/b/a A.Q. Denture and Implant 7 Center (“A.Q. Denture”) are denture clinics—Fox’s Spokane is located in 8 Spokane, Washington, whereas A.Q. Denture is located in Henderson, Nevada. 9 Defendant Novel Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Ivory Digital Dentures is a corporation 10 based out of Ontario, Canada. 11 In October 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendant attended a denture professional 12 trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. At this trade show, Defendant, through its 13 employee representatives and/or owners, Sholomo Sharer and Benjamin Sharer, 14 marketed a 3D denture system to Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that 15 Defendant told them, both orally and in its written marketing materials, that the 3D 16 denture system contained a 3D printer, resin, and a face mapping tool; that the 17 system could produce full, complete, workable, and superior denture sets in three 18 hours or less; and that the entire denture process, from initial visit to denture 19 fitting, would take under half a day to complete. Plaintiffs also allege that 20 Defendant represented that the dentures created with this system were completely 21 safe, as hard as Lucitone 199 resin, and would be made of materials that were FDA 22 approved. 23 Based on these representations, Plaintiffs entered into separate contracts 24 with Defendant to purchase the 3D denture system for $66,000. However, 25 Plaintiffs allege that the systems have not worked as advertised—in fact, Plaintiffs 26 state that the systems have been unable to manufacture even a single complete set 27 of properly fitted dentures. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant’s system has not 28 worked along any other advertised dimension, including the strength of the resin, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT # 2 1 the FDA approval, the safety of the resulting dentures, the efficacy of the included 2 tools, and the time/cost/effort required to use the system. 3 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on February 4, 2021. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs 4 alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith 5 and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent 6 misrepresentation, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, violation 7 of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranty, breach 8 of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied warranty for a 9 particular purpose. 10 Plaintiffs issued a Summons to Defendant on February 4, 2021. ECF No. 4. 11 But, despite the Summons being returned as executed on February 25, 2021, ECF 12 No. 5, Defendant did not enter a Notice of Appearance. Plaintiffs’ process server 13 also submitted a Declaration on April 22, 2021, specifically attesting that he 14 delivered copies of the Summons and Complaint to Benjamin Sharer, the 15 Operations Manager for Defendant. ECF No. 6. 16 On April 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Default Against 17 Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 and LCivR 55(a)(1). ECF No. 7. The 18 Clerk’s Office entered an Order of Default on April 28, 2021. ECF No. 9. Plaintiffs 19 filed the present motion on March 2, 2022. ECF No. 14. To date, Defendant has 20 still not appeared in this case. 21 Legal Standard 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) allows a party to move for default judgment if the 23 opposing party “has failed to plead or otherwise defend” the action. Rule 55 24 outlines two methods through which a party can request a default judgment. If (1) a 25 plaintiff’s claim is for a certain sum or a sum that can be made certain by 26 computation; (2) the defendant has not appeared; and (3) the defendant is not a 27 minor or an incompetent person, the plaintiff can request default judgment from 28 the clerk’s office. However, in all other cases, the plaintiff must instead request ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT # 3 1 default judgment from the court. Under Local Civil Rule 55, the Court utilizes a two-step process for default 2 3 judgment: first, the party must file a motion for entry of default and obtain an 4 Order of Default from the Clerk’s Office. Then, the party must file a motion for 5 default judgment. Here, Plaintiffs have already obtained an Order of Default. ECF 6 No. 9. 7 But, even if entry of default has been made by the court clerk, granting a 8 default judgment is not automatic; rather, it is left to the sound discretion of the 9 Court. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court, in 10 exercising its discretion to grant or deny entry of a default judgment, should 11 consider the following factors: (1) the substantive merits of the plaintiff’s claims; 12 (2) the sufficiency of the complaint; (3) the amount of money at stake; (4) the 13 possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is denied; (5) the possibility of a 14 dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether default was the result of excusable 15 neglect; and (7) the strong policy of the Federal Rules that favors decisions on the 16 merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). 17 18 Discussion Plaintiffs request that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant. 19 Plaintiffs argue that default judgment is warranted because Defendant has failed to 20 appear and defend in the action, despite being validly served with a summons and 21 more than a year elapsing between the filing of the Complaint and the current 22 motion. As part of the default judgment, Plaintiffs request that the Court award 23 Fox’s Spokane $86,900.40 and A.Q. Denture $79,794.20 in damages. Plaintiffs 24 also request that the Court award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees in the 25 amounts of $11,751.82 to Fox’s Spokane and $10,450,84 to A.Q. Denture. 26 The Court finds good cause to grant the motion. Despite the Federal Rules’ 27 strong policy in favor of decisions on the merits, the factors present in this case 28 support the issuance of a default judgment against Defendant. First, Plaintiffs have ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT # 4 1 alleged specific and detailed facts in their Complaint that support the merits of 2 their claims. Second, Plaintiffs allege that they have incurred significant monetary 3 damages as a result of Defendant’s actions. Third, though the Court recognizes the 4 possibility that there may be disputed material facts supporting Defendant’s non5 liability, Defendant has failed to appear and present those facts to the Court, 6 despite being given ample opportunity. Lastly, Defendant has not provided any 7 basis for the Court to conclude that its non-appearance is due to excusable neglect. 8 Thus, especially given the fact that Defendant is a corporation and neither a minor 9 nor an incompetent person, the Court concludes that default judgment against 10 Defendant is warranted. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have proved their damages with 11 12 sufficient certainty. Plaintiffs have submitted copies of their Equipment Finance 13 Agreements with Defendant, showing their monthly payments for the 3D denture 14 system, and receipts of their service/administrative fees associated with the 15 equipment. These damages amount to $86,900.40 for Fox’s Spokane and 16 $79,794.20 for A.Q. Denture. Additionally, Plaintiffs and their counsel attest that 17 they have incurred reasonable costs and attorney’s fees amounting to $11,751.82 to 18 Fox’s Spokane and $10,450,84 to A.Q. Denture. The Court finds good cause to 19 award the requested damages and attorney’s fees/costs. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter a default judgment against 22 Defendant in the above-captioned matter. 23 2. The Court awards Plaintiff Fox’s Spokane $86,900.40 in damages. 24 3. The Court awards Plaintiff A.Q. Denture $79,794.20 in damages. 25 4. The Court awards counsel for Plaintiff Fox’s Spokane fees and costs 26 in the amount of $11,751.82. 27 // 28 // ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT # 5 1 5. The Court awards counsel for Plaintiff A.Q. Denture fees and costs in 2 the amount of $10,450,84. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 4 this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. 5 DATED this 22nd day of April 2022. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT # 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.