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 □□