United States District Court, D. Colorado
SHO SERVICES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiff,
CHINA FILM GROUP CORPORATION, a China corporation, Defendant. Date 15-Apr-17 Invoice No. 04152017001 Memorandum Reference No. SS519D Total due $29, 400.00
ORDER ENTERING DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT
CHINA FILM GROUP CORPORATION
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sho Services,
LLC's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant China
Film Group Corporation. (Doc. # 16.) For the reasons
discussed below, the motion is granted and a default judgment
is a Colorado-based security, crowd safety, and management
company that provides safety consulting and management
designed for live entertainment environments, including
evacuation plans, emergency procedure plans, public safety
coordination, and budgeting compliance. (Id. at
¶ 7.) Defendant is a film enterprise in the People's
Republic of China. (Id. at ¶ 2.)
early 2017, Defendant was seeking security, security
coordination, and executive protection in several locations
in Asia for the production of a new, feature-length
theatrical motion picture, known as Edge of the World.
(Id. at ¶ 8.) In connection with this search,
Defendant sent emails to Plaintiff regarding the services it
needed, and in response, Plaintiff provided security
personnel profiles to Defendant. (Id.)
eventually asked Plaintiff to book airfare for several of
Plaintiff's security personnel to fly to Asia.
(Id.) As a result, the Parties entered into a
payment contract, referred to as a Reimbursement Memorandum.
(Id. at ¶ 9.) Over the next two months,
Defendant made numerous additional requests to Plaintiff for
security personnel to assist in the filming and production of
Edge of the World in Asia. Each time Plaintiff provided such
personnel, the Parties entered into another Reimbursement
Memorandum. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-11.) Via email,
Defendant also agreed to pay for additional expenses
connected to Plaintiff's services, travels, and
appearances at various meetings in China. (Doc. # 25.)
with its services, the executed Memoranda, and various other
email exchanges, Plaintiff issued a series of invoices from
its location in Colorado via email to Defendant. For example,
Plaintiff issued invoices to Defendant on February 25, 2017
(two), February 26, 2017 (four), March 5, 2017 (two), March
11, 2017, March 19, 2017 (three), March 27, 2017, March 31,
2017, April 5, 2017, and April 15, 2017. (Id. at
¶ 12; Doc. # 21-2.) Despite repeated requests for
payment, Defendant has not paid any of these invoices and,
according to Plaintiff, Defendant now owes Plaintiff the
principal amount of $241, 923.91 for services provided and
costs incurred. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.)
recover this outstanding debt, Plaintiff commenced this
action, asserting two claims for relief: Breach of Contract
and Unjust Enrichment. (Doc. # 1.) Plaintiff effectuated
service on November 13, 2017. (Doc. # 14.) When Defendant did
not respond to the Complaint or otherwise enter an
appearance, Plaintiff moved for an Entry of Default, which
the Clerk granted on February 13, 2018 (Doc. # 18), and a
Default Judgment, which is the subject of the instant order.
entering default judgment against a party who has failed to
plead or otherwise defend, the district court has an
affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over the
parties. Williams v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d
1200, 1202-03 (10th Cir. 1986); see also Hukill v. Okla.
Native Am. Domestic Violence Coalition, 542 F.3d 794,
797 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[A] default judgment in a civil
case is void if there is no personal jurisdiction over the
defendant.”). Defects in personal jurisdiction are not
waived by default when a party fails to appear or to respond,
and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving personal
jurisdiction before a default judgment may be entered.
Williams, 802 F.2d at 1202-03. “Where, as
here, the issue is determined on the basis of the pleadings
and affidavits, that burden may be met by a prima facie
showing.” Sharpshooter Spectrum Venture, LLC v.
Consentino, No. 09-cv-0150-WDM-KLM, 2011 WL 3159094, at
*2 (D. Colo. July 26, 2011) (citing Shrader v.
Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2011)).
establish personal jurisdiction in a diversity case, a
plaintiff must show both that jurisdiction is proper under
the forum state's long-arm statute and that exercise of
personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with the
Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
Equifax Services, Inc. v. Hitz, 905 F.2d 1355, 1357
(10th Cir. 1990). Colorado's long-arm statute permits the
Court to exercise personal jurisdiction to the full extent of
the Due Process Clause so the analysis collapses into a
single due process inquiry. See Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 13-1-124(1)(a)-(b); Dart Int'l, Inc. v.
Interactive Target Sys., Inc., 877 F.Supp. 541, 543 (D.
Colo. 1995) (citing Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior
Court, 167 Colo. 456 (1968)); SGI Air Holdings II
LLC. v. Novartis Int'l, AG, 192 F.Supp.2d 1195,
1197-98 (D. Colo. 2002).
Due Process Clause protects a [defendant's] liberty
interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a
forum with which [it] has established no meaningful
‘contacts, ties, or relations.'” Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985)
(quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington,
326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)). To comport with due process
limitations, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction only
over defendants that have “certain minimum contacts
[with the jurisdiction] . . . .” Int'l
Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316 (quoting Milliken v.
Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).
minimum contacts standard may be satisfied in either of two
ways-general or specific jurisdiction. See Kuenzle v. HTM
Sport-Und Freizeitgerate AG, 102 F.3d 453, 455 (10th
Cir. 1996). The court's duty is the same in either case:
guarantee that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980) (quoting Int'l
Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316) (internal quotation omitted).
pertinent there, specific jurisdiction exists if a three part
inquiry is satisfied: “(1) the defendant purposefully
avails itself of the privilege of acting in Colorado or of
causing important consequences in the state; (2) the cause of
action arises from the consequences of the defendant's
in-state activity; and (3) defendant's activities, or the
consequences thereof, have a substantial enough connection
with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction
over the defendant reasonable.” Van Schaack &
Co. v. Dist. ...