Dividend v. Construction

Background

Dividend, a division of Fifth Third Bank, National Association, sued Multitaskr Construction, Inc. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Dividend alleged that the parties entered into a Dealer Agreement on September 16, 2022. Under that agreement, Dividend financed home-installation projects that Multitaskr was supposed to complete.

Dividend alleged that it paid Multitaskr $786,226.87 for 23 projects for which Multitaskr had submitted completion certificates, even though Multitaskr had not actually completed the projects. Dividend said it sought repayment or completion of the work, but Multitaskr did neither.

Default and Service

Dividend served Multitaskr’s summons and complaint on Multitaskr’s designated agent for service of process, LegalInc. The court held that this was valid service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and California law.

Dividend initially requested entry of default, but that request was denied. After Dividend requested entry of default a second time, the Clerk of Court entered default against Multitaskr on July 23, 2025. Multitaskr did not answer the complaint, oppose the motion for default judgment, appear at the initial case-management conference, or otherwise appear in the case.

Court’s Analysis

Under Rule 55, a court may enter default judgment after the clerk has entered a party’s default. When default is entered, the complaint’s factual allegations generally are treated as true, except allegations concerning the amount of damages. The court applied the factors identified in Eitel v. McCool, including prejudice to the plaintiff, the merits and sufficiency of the claims, the amount at stake, the possibility of disputed facts, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the federal rules’ preference for decisions on the merits.

The court found that these factors favored default judgment. It concluded that Dividend would be prejudiced without a judgment, that the requested damages were tied to the amount Dividend paid, and that there was no indication of disputed facts or excusable neglect because Multitaskr had not participated in the case.

For breach of contract, the court found that Dividend had alleged the required elements: a contract, Dividend’s performance by paying Multitaskr, Multitaskr’s breach by failing to complete the installations, and resulting damage. For unjust enrichment, the court found that Dividend had alleged Multitaskr received and unjustly retained the financing after failing to perform the work for which it was paid.

Relief and Disposition

The court granted the motion for default judgment and awarded Dividend $786,226.87 in actual damages. The court also noted that the contract allows recovery of attorneys’ fees and related costs for losses connected to a breach, but Dividend had not yet provided a calculation of those amounts. The court ordered Dividend to file its motion for fees and costs by November 14, 2025. The order did not award attorneys’ fees or costs at that time.