United States of America, for the use and benefit of Alameda Electric Distributors, Inc. v. Eco Engineering, Inc.

I. INTRODUCTION

13 Plaintiff Alameda Electric Distributors, Inc. brings this breach of contract case against 14 Defendant ECO Engineering, Inc., doing business as Consolidated Lighting Services (“Eco”). 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. ECF No 43. Eco has neither 16 opposed the motion nor appeared in this case. The undersigned finds this matter suitable for 17 disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated 18 below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the District Court GRANT the motion. 19

II. BACKGROUND

20 Plaintiff is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Hayward, 21 California. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1. Eco is an Ohio corporation. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff also named 22 Ameresco, Inc. and Western Surety Company as defendants in this case, but it subsequently 23 dismissed them. ECF Nos. 28, 36. 24 On or before July 2003, Ameresco and Eco contracted with the U.S. Department of 25 Defense on the federal project known as the “Energy Savings Performance Contract – USCGC 26 Training Center Petaluma, CA,” (the “Project”) pursuant to Solicitation No. SP0604-21-0407, 27 which was…