The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 Jeremy RYAN, Case No.: 25-cv-2348-AGS-BLM
4 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
5 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF 32)
6
BEST IN SLOT, LLC FZ,
7
Defendant.
8
9
Unrepresented plaintiff Jeremy Ryan seeks a default judgment of over $19 million,
10
plus injunctive and other relief. (ECF 32, at 7 (seeking, among other things, “$19,494,102
11
(or in the alternative $9,498,701)”).) That request is denied.
12
When a defendant fails to defend, the “court’s decision whether to enter a default
13
judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).
14
That discretion is guided by seven factors. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72
15
(9th Cir. 1986). But the Court need not reach that discretionary analysis, as plaintiff has
16
not met his “burden on default judgment to establish the amount of [his] damages.” See
17
Board of Trs. of Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Westech Roofing, 42 F.
18
Supp. 3d 1220, 1232 n.13 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “To recover damages after securing a default
19
judgment,” a plaintiff must “prove the relief it seeks” through admissible evidence, such
20
as “testimony or written affidavit.” Global Brother SRL, v. Kaur, No. 25-cv-01283-VKD,
21
2026 WL 2076143, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2026). “Courts apply the preponderance of
22
the evidence standard in determining a plaintiff’s damages.” Channel Well Tech. v. Core
23
Info. Sys., No. CV 26-1495 FMO (ASx), 2026 WL 1847842, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 22,
24
2026).
25
Ryan’s motion falls woefully short of convincing this Court by a preponderance of
26
the evidence that plaintiff’s proposed numbers are an appropriate measure of damages. As
27
evidence, Ryan offers only his own declaration, which purports to value his damages based
28
| his stakes in four cryptocurrency coins: “BRC-2.0 Punks,” “Punkameleons,” “Bitcoin
2 || Cousins,” and “Moonkees.” (ECF 32-1, at 4-5.) Ryan “use[d] three BRC-2.0 tokens that
3 || BIS actually launched -- ACORNS, Godsfi, and Gamefi -- as benchmark comparables.”
4 || at 4.) According to Ryan, “[t]hese are the only true comparables: same protocol, same
5 || BIS platform, same time period.” (/d.) But this claim is based entirely on his say-so. There
6 ||is no evidence attached to his declaration to support that statement—indeed, there is no
7 evidence attached to his declaration at all. (See generally id.) Without any evidentiary
8 ||record, Ryan essentially asks this Court to take at face value: the valuation numbers he
9 || provides, his representation that the coins he staked would have had a similar performance,
10 the implicit assumption that there are no differences or market conditions that might
11 to a damages differential.
12 This will not do. “The entry of default does not convert this court into a rubber stamp
13 ||for whatever judgment a plaintiff proposes, and in some ways a motion for default
14 ||judgment places an additional burden on the court because it lacks the benefit of an
15 adversary to raise legal and factual disputes.” U.S. ex rel. Am. Taxpayers Fighting Fraud
16 || LLC v. Cole Harris, No. 2:22-cv-04178-MWC-RAO, 2026 WL 1917694, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
17 || July 1, 2026) (cleaned up). Thus, the default-judgment motion is DENIED without
18 || prejudice. Any updated motion must be filed by September 21, 2026.
19 Dated: July 21, 2026
1 Andre Schopler
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 a □□