# Lin v. Suavei, Inc.

> District Court, S.D. California · February 9, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087126

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** February 9, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087126

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 JADE LIN, et al., ) CASE NO. 3:20-cv-00862-L-AHG
)
12 Plaintiffs, )
v. ) ORDER:
13 ) (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
SUAVEI, INC., ) MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
14 ) DEFAULT AGAINST
Defendants. ) SUAVEI, INC; [ECF NO 93]
15 )
) (2) GRANTING COUNTER-
16 ) CLAIMANT FRANK DE
) JOY’S MOTION FOR
17 ) ENTRY OF DEFAULT
) AGAINST SUAVEI, INC
18 ) [ECF NO 91]; and
)
19 ) (3) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
) MOTION FOR SUMMARY
20 JUDGMENT AS MOOT [ECF
NO. 85]
21 )
Suavei, Inc., a Delaware corporation, )
22 )
Third-Party Plaintiff, )
23 v. )
)
24 Frank DeJoy, an individual, )
)
25 Third-Party Defendant. )
)
26 )
Frank DeJoy, an individual, )
27 )
Counter-Claimant, )
1 )
Suavei, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, )
2 )
Counter-Defendant. )
3 )

4
Pending before the Court are Motions for Entry of Default against Defendant
5
Suavei (“Suavei”) filed by Plaintiffs Jade Lin, Jay Li, Minh Hong (“Plaintiffs”) and
6
Counter-claimant Frank DeJoy (“DeJoy”). [ECF Nos. 91, 93.] The Court decides the
7
matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d.1).
8
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motions for Entry of Default
9
and Strikes the Answer.
10
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
11
On May 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Afonso Infante, Allison
12
Wong, cofounders and the only board members of Suavei, and Suavei alleging: (1)
13
fraudulent inducement; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4)
14
breach of duty of loyalty; and (4) negligent misrepresentation. (See Complaint [Doc.
15
1].) The Court dismissed the Complaint sua sponte with leave to amend for lack of
16
subject matter jurisdiction on May 8, 2020. [ECF NO. 3.] On May 11, 2020,
17
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 4.] On June 29, 2020,
18
Plaintiffs filed a request to file a Second Amended Complaint, which the Court
19
granted on October 8, 2020. [ECF Nos. 14, 30.] On October 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed
20
a Second Amended Complaint. On October 23, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to
21
dismiss. [ECF No. 33.] On September 1, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied
22
in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed Defendant Wong, leaving only
23
Suavei and Infante as Defendants. [ECF No. 54.]
24
On July 15, 2022, counsel for Suavei filed a Motion to Withdraw. [ECF No. 83.]
25
On July 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement and a motion for summary
26
judgment. [ECF Nos. 84, 85.] On July 26, 2022, the Court granted the motion to
27
withdraw in part because Suavei was no longer able to pay for its defense. [ECF No.
1 88.] On August 15, 2022, Counter-Claimant Frank DeJoy (“DeJoy”) filed a motion

2 for entry of default against Defendant Suavei. [ECF No. 91.] On September 15, 2022,

3 Plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of default against Suavei. [ECF No. 93.] On

4 November 10, 2022, a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of Defendant Afonso Infante

5 was filed in this Court. [ECF No. 103.] The Notice states that “Plaintiffs and

6 Individual Defendant Afonso Infante (“Infante”) (together, the “Parties”) have

7 reached a settlement agreement, which results in the dismissal of Infante from this

8 action” [Id.]

9 II. LEGAL STANDARD

10 “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed

11 to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the

12 clerk must enter the party's default.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). If a corporation fails to

13 appear through counsel, its answer may be stricken and a default judgment entered

14 against the party. Employee Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc., 480 F.3d 993,

15 998 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Civil Local Rule 83.3j (“[A]ll other parties, including

16 corporation, partnerships and other legal entities may appear in court only through an

17 attorney[];” D-Beam Ltd. Partnership v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972,

18 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004)(“It is a longstanding rule that ‘[c]orporations and other

19 unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.’”)

20 III. DISCUSSION

21 Plaintiffs and DeJoy seek entry of default based on Suavei’s lack of counsel and

22 abandonment of its defenses. (Plaintiff Motion at 1 [ECF No 93-1]; DeJoy Motion at

23 2 [ECF No. 91-1.]) In light of Suavei’s abandonment of its defenses, Plaintiffs and

24 DeJoy request that the Answer be stricken. (Pl. Mot. at 5; DeJoy Mot. at 4).

25 Plaintiffs further request that the Court grant the pending motion for summary

26 judgment because Suavei has not responded to the motion, therefore, there are no

27 genuine disputes of material fact. (Pl. Mot. at 5-6).
1 It is undisputed that Suavei is without counsel to defend itself in this action.

2 Furthermore, in the motion to withdraw, Suavei’s counsel represented that Suavei

3 was no longer able to pay for its defense, and that Suavei did not intend to defend

4 against Plaintiffs’ or DeJoy’s claims. (Mot. Withdraw at 5-6 [ECF No. 83.]) Afonso

5 Infante stated:

6 1. I am the lone principal for Suavei, Inc., meaning I serve as Suavei’s only
officer, including as Suavei’s Chief Executive Officer, and only board
7
member. I knowingly and freely assent to the termination of Wilson, Elser,
8 Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, including attorneys David Aveni and
Michael McCloskey’s representation of Suavei in this matter, and I instructed
9
Wilson Elser to withdraw as counsel, as Suavei has no further means of paying
10 for its defense. I understand that by assenting to the termination of Wilson,

Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, including attorneys’ David Aveni
11
and Michael McCloskey’s representation of Suavei in this matter, Suavei will
12 no longer be represented by counsel, and will not be able to defend itself in this

matter. Suavei does not intend to defend itself against the pending claims.
13

14 2. Should Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, including

attorneys David Aveni and Michael McCloskey be permitted to withdraw as
15
counsel, Suavei does not intend to present a defense to Plaintiffs claims or
16 Third-Party Defendant Frank DeJoy’s counterclaims. I understand this means

if Plaintiffs or Frank DeJoy choose to continue to pursue their claims, a default
17
judgment may be entered against Suavei.
18

(Infante Dec. at 2, 3 [ECF No. 83-2])(emphasis added).
19

First, Suavei no longer has counsel as required to continue in this action,
20

therefore, the Court may enter default judgment against Suavei. Employee Painters’
21
Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, it is
22

clear from Infante’s declaration that Suavei has abandoned its defenses against the
23

claims raised by Plaintiffs and DeJoy, supporting entry of default pursuant to Fed. R.
24

Civ. P. 55. See, Employee Painters, Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc., 480 F.3d 993,
25

998 (9th Cir. 2007). Rule 55(a) provides: “When a party against whom a judgment
26

for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that
27

failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.”
1 || Fed.R.Civ.P.55. In light of the abandonment of its defenses, the Court further strike
2 ||the Answer. Ethan Enterprises, Inc., 480 F.3d at 998.
3 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for entry o:
5 || default against Suavei, GRANTS Counter-Claimant Frank DeJoy’s motion for entr
6 || of default against Suavei, Orders that the Answer be STRICKEN, and DENIES
7 || Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED

10 Dated: February 9, 2023

12 United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087126. Public record. Not legal advice.