JFXD TRX ACQ LLC v. Crankit International Pty Ltd, No. 2:2023cv00298 - Document 19 (W.D. Wash. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Default Judgment. A permanent injunction is entered against CrankIt, its affiliates, officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with, CrankIt . Such persons are permanently enjoined and restrained as described herein. Plaintiff may pursue discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2) to determine its complete damages due to Defendant's patent infringement. Plaintiff may submit a request for an award of fees and costs when it requests a final judgment in this matter. Signed by Judge John H. Chun. (SB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
JFXD TRX ACQ LLC v. Crankit International Pty Ltd Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 11 12 JFXD TRX ACQ LLC, dba TRX, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 Case No.: 2:23-cv-00298-JHC ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT v. CRANKIT INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD., dba CrankIt Fitness, an Australian Company, Defendant. 18 I 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. Dkt. # 22 16. The Court has reviewed the materials submitted in support of the motion, pertinent parts of 23 the record, and the applicable law. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 24 II 25 BACKGROUND 26 In March 2023, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant, an Australian company, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Page No. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 claiming infringement of three patents. Dkt. # 1. In May, Plaintiff served Defendant with 2 process in Australia. Dkt. # 11. In June, Plaintiff moved for default, Dkt. # 12, and the Clerk 3 4 of Court entered default against Defendant, Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff now moves for a default judgment. 5 III 6 DISCUSSION 7 8 9 10 11 12 A. Jurisdiction The Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this case, as Plaintiff asserts federal patent infringement claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1338. Also, it appears that the Court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction is proper as (1) Plaintiff has indicated that Defendant has purposefully and intentionally availed 13 14 itself of the privilege of doing business in the State of Washington by alleging that Defendant 15 sells Plaintiff’s patented products here via Amazon.com and other websites and has entered into 16 contracts with customers here, Dkt. # 1; (2) the claims arise out of Defendant’s conduct 17 directed toward Washington (and elsewhere); and (3) nothing in the record suggests that the 18 exercise of such jurisdiction would be unreasonable. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin 19 Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). 20 B. Default Judgment 21 22 If a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend, as here, the Clerk enters the party’s 23 default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Then, upon a plaintiff’s request or motion, the Court may grant 24 default judgment for the plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); see Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 25 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). On default judgment motions, “[t]he court must accept all well- 26 pled allegations of the complaint as established fact, except allegations related to the amount of ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Page No. 2 1 damages.” UN4 Prods., Inc. v. Primozich, 372 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1133 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 2 (citing TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987)). Courts 3 4 5 6 7 typically consider these “Eitel factors” on a motion for 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. 8 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). Default judgments are generally 9 disfavored, so “default judgment is appropriate only if the well-pleaded factual allegations of 10 the complaint suffice to establish a plaintiff’s entitlement to a judgment under the applicable 11 12 law.” Dentist Ins. Co. v. Luke St. Marie Valley Dental Grp., P.L.L.C., No. 2:21-cv-01229-JHC, 2022 WL 1984124 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 6, 2022) (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 13 14 15 16 17 847, 855 (9th Cir. 2007)). 1. Prejudice to Plaintiff “[P]rejudice exists where the plaintiff has no recourse for recovery other than default judgment.” Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1211 (W.D. Wash. 2014) 18 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant has failed to respond to this action, 19 20 so default judgment is Plaintiff’s only means for relief. See Eve Nevada, LLC v. Derbyshire, 21 No. 21-0251-LK, 2022 WL 279030 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2022); Bd. of Trs. of U.A. Loc. No. 22 159 Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. RT/DT, Inc., No. C 12-05111 JSW, 2013 WL 2237871, at *4 23 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2013) (“Because ERISA provides that federal courts have exclusive 24 25 jurisdiction for claims of this nature, denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion would leave them without a remedy.”). Thus, this factor supports default judgment. 26 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Page No. 3 1 2 2. Merits of Plaintiff’s claims and Sufficiency of Complaint “Courts often consider the second and third Eitel factors together.” Developers Sur. 3 4 5 and Indem. Co. v. View Point Builders, Inc., No. C20-0221JLR, 2020 WL 3303046, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 17, 2022). Accepting the allegations of patent infringement as true, Plaintiff 6 presents enough facts to establish that such a claim is plausible as to three of its patents. Dkt. # 7 1. Thus, the second and third Eitel factors weigh in favor of Plaintiff. 8 3. Sum of money at stake 9 10 This factor “considers whether the amount of money requested is proportional to the 11 harm caused.” Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Estate of Wheeler, No. C19-0364JLR, 12 2020 WL 433352, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2020). For now, Plaintiff is requesting only 13 equitable relief and seeks discovery regarding damages. 14 4. Possibility of dispute over material facts 15 16 There is no sign that the material facts are in dispute. “The general rule of law is that 17 upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to damages, will be 18 taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). Defendant did 19 not appear, so the Clerk correctly entered default against it. Dkt. # 15. This factor weighs in 20 favor of Plaintiff. 21 5. Probability that default was because of excusable neglect 22 23 24 25 26 The sixth Eitel factor assesses whether a defendant’s default for failure to appear was because of excusable neglect. Boards of Trustees of Inland Empire Elec. Workers Welfare Tr. v. Excel Elec. Servs., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00200-MKD, 2022 WL 1243663, at *4 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2022). Generally, courts do not find excusable neglect when defendants were properly ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Page No. 4 1 served with the complaint. See, e.g., Maersk Line v. Golden Harvest Alaska Seafood LLC, No. 2 C20-1140-JLR-MLP, 2020 WL 6083464, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2020), report and 3 4 recommendation adopted, No. C20-1140 JLR, 2020 WL 6077419 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 15, 2020). Plaintiff establishes that it properly served Defendant. See Dkt. # 11. 5 6. Policy favoring decision on the merits 6 7 8 9 Generally, cases “should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible,” so courts disfavor default judgment on this factor. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. But in this case, Defendant’s failure to appear or respond “makes a decision on the merits impractical, if not 10 impossible,” so the Court is not precluded from granting default judgment. PepsiCo, Inc. v. 11 12 Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002); see also Empl. Painters’ Trust v. 13 Dahl Constr. Servs., Inc., No. C19-1541-RSM, 2020 WL 3639591 (W.D. Wash. July 6, 2020). 14 Thus, default judgment is an appropriate remedy in this case. 15 IV 16 CONCLUSION 17 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion for default judgment. 18 A permanent injunction is entered against CrankIt, its affiliates, officers, agents, 19 20 21 22 employees, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with, CrankIt. Such persons are permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. 23 making, offering for sale, selling, and importing the exercise strap products that infringe U.S. Pat. Nos. D831,764, 10,857,413, and 11,400,334, including, those 24 products identified in Exhibit A of the Complaint (Dkt. # 1–1) as the CrankIt 25 Home Strap (the “Infringing Products”); 26 b. aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone to make, offer for ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Page No. 5 sale, sell, and import the Infringing Products; and 1 2 3 4 c. effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations, or utilizing other methods for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b). 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff may pursue discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2) to determine its complete damages due to Defendant’s patent infringement. Plaintiff may submit a request for an award of fees and costs when it requests a final judgment in this matter. Dated this 24th day of August, 2023. 11 12 13 John H Chun United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Page No. 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.
