United States of America v. Engineering
United States of America, for the use and benefit of Alameda Electric Distributors, Inc. v. Eco Engineering, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-06754
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 19
In Alameda Electric Distributors v. Eco Engineering, Judge Gilliam received a recommendation for default judgment over unpaid materials.
Alameda Electric Distributors, Inc. seeks payment from Eco Engineering, Inc. The recommendation would impose a monetary judgment against Eco, but the opinion text is a magistrate judge’s recommendation and does not show the district court’s final action.
What happened
In United States of America, for the use and benefit of Alameda Electric Distributors, Inc. v. Eco Engineering, Inc., Alameda said Eco failed to pay $67,733.54 for materials supplied to a federal project in California. Eco was served, did not appear, and did not oppose the request for default judgment.
The magistrate judge found that the court had authority over the case and Eco, that Eco had been properly served, and that Alameda adequately stated its breach-of-contract, account-stated, and open-book-account claims. The recommendation does not seek judgment on Alameda’s quantum-meruit or Miller Act payment-bond claims.
The report, signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson and submitted for review by Judge Haywood Gilliam, recommends granting Alameda’s motion for default judgment. It recommends $52,733.54 in principal, specified prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and $10,164.41 in attorney’s fees and costs; the opinion is a recommendation rather than the district court’s final ruling.
The detailed version
- United States of America v. Engineering · No. 4:24-cv-06754
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
Alameda Electric Distributors, Inc. brought claims against Eco Engineering, Inc., doing business as Consolidated Lighting Services, concerning materials Alameda supplied for a federal project at the U.S. Coast Guard Training Center in Petaluma, California. The project was governed by a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense and had a value exceeding $100,000. Alameda and Eco entered into a credit agreement under which Alameda agreed to furnish materials, equipment, and other facilities for the project, with payment due within 30 days of invoicing.
Alameda alleged that it completed its work or supplied the materials by about January 18, 2024, but Eco failed to pay $67,733.54 due under the agreement. Alameda later received a partial payment of $15,000 on February 26, 2025. Alameda initially also named Ameresco, Inc. and Western Surety Company as defendants, but voluntarily dismissed both of them. Eco was served through its registered agent on October 25, 2024, did not appear, and did not respond to the motion for default judgment. The clerk entered Eco’s default on January 30, 2025.
Claims and jurisdiction
Alameda alleged five claims: breach of contract, quantum meruit, a Miller Act payment-bond claim, account stated, and open book account. In seeking default judgment, Alameda requested judgment on only the breach-of-contract, account-stated, and open-book-account claims.
The report concluded that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint included a claim under the Miller Act, a federal statute concerning payment bonds on qualifying federal construction projects. It also concluded that Eco had sufficient contacts with California for specific personal jurisdiction because Eco’s project-related contractual activities occurred there and Alameda’s claims arose from those activities. The report found that service on Eco’s registered agent satisfied the federal service rules.
Default-judgment analysis
A default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant fails to appear or defend. Applying the seven factors used in the Ninth Circuit, the report found that most factors favored default judgment. Eco’s failure to participate left Alameda without another remedy, the complaint adequately stated the three claims for which judgment was requested, the amount sought was tied to the alleged nonpayment, and there was no indication that Eco’s failure to respond resulted from excusable neglect. The policy favoring decisions on the merits weighed against default judgment but did not prevent it.
For breach of contract, the report found that Alameda adequately alleged an agreement, its performance by furnishing materials, Eco’s failure to pay, and resulting damages. It also found that Alameda adequately alleged the elements of account stated and open book account under California law.
Recommended relief
The report recommends granting Alameda’s motion for default judgment and entering judgment against Eco. It recommends an award of $52,733.54 in principal, reflecting the alleged unpaid balance after the $15,000 partial payment.
It also recommends $5,602.10 in prejudgment interest for the period from April 30, 2024, through February 26, 2025, plus prejudgment interest on the remaining balance at $14.45 per day from February 27, 2025, through entry of judgment. The report recommends post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
The report further recommends $9,034.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,129.91 in costs, for total attorney’s fees and costs of $10,164.41. It explains that the contract allowed recovery of attorney’s fees and that the requested hourly rate and documented hours were reasonable.
Status of the recommendation
The document is a report and recommendation, not a final district court order. It recommends that the district court grant the motion. The document states that a party may file objections within 14 days after service and warns that failing to object may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the recommendation for consideration by District Judge Haywood Gilliam.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.