Lead Real Estate Co., Ltd. v. BF Borgers CPA PC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01698-CNS-NRN
LEAD REAL ESTATE CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BF BORGERS CPA PC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	N. 	Reid 	Neureiter’s
Recommendation to grant Plaintiff Lead Real Estate Co., Ltd.’s Motion for Default Final
Judgment. 	See 	ECF 	No. 	16 	(Motion 	for 	Default 	Final 	Judgment); 	ECF 	No. 	25
(Recommendation). Neither party has objected to the Recommendation. Just as critical,
Defendant BF Borgers CPA PC did not respond to the motion for default judgment and
has not otherwise appeared or participated in this lawsuit, despite being served. See ECF
No. 7. For the reasons below, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation
and GRANTS the Motion for Default Final Judgment.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant arising out of
three contracts into which Plaintiff entered with Defendant for accounting and auditing
services. 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	Plaintiff 	asserted 	four 	claims 	against 	Defendant, 	including
Case No. 1:25-cv-01698-CNS-NRN Document 26 filed 01/08/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4

2
professional malpractice, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment. See id. at 7-11. On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant at its principal
place of business via U.S. certified Mail, return receipt requested.1 See ECF Nos. 7, 7-2.
Despite being served, Defendant never entered an appearance in the case. On July 8,
2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default, ECF No. 10, and default was
entered against Defendant the same day, ECF No. 11.
On August 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that the Court
issue an order entering a default final judgment against Defendant and awarding Plaintiff
damages, costs, and fees. See ECF No. 16 at 11. The Court referred the motion to
Magistrate Judge Neureiter, ECF No. 17, who heard oral argument on October 22, 2025,
ECF No. 25 at 1. On December 1, 2025, Magistrate Judge Neureiter issued his
Recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be granted and finding that
Defendant substantially breached its three agreements with Plaintiff. ECF No. 25 at 12.
Magistrate Judge Neureiter also concluded that Plaintiff is entitled to restitution damages
(based 	on 	Defendant’s 	substantial 	breach), 	compensatory 	damages, 	prejudgment
interest, post-judgment interest, and litigation costs. Id. at 12–13. Magistrate Judge
Neureiter further advised the parties that they had 14 days to file written objections to his
Recommendation. Id. at 13. No party objected.
1 As noted in Magistrate Judge Neureiter’s Recommendation, “[s]ervice via U.S. Certified Mail was proper
in this case because Defendant’s registered agent was not located at the registered agent address listed
with the Colorado Secretary of State, and could not be served with reasonable diligence.” ECF No. 25 at 7
(citing Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-90-704(2) (“If an entity that is required to maintain a registered agent . . . , or if
the registered agent is not located under its registered agent name at its registered agent address, . . . the
entity may be served by registered mail or by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the entity
at its principal address.)).
Case No. 1:25-cv-01698-CNS-NRN Document 26 filed 01/08/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4

3
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD & ANALYSIS
When—as is the case here—a party does not object to a Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation, the Court “may review a magistrate [judge]’s report under any standard
it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)
(citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). The Court is “accorded considerable
discretion” when reviewing “unchallenged” recommendations. Id. Here, the Court has
reviewed Magistrate Judge Neureiter’s thorough Recommendation and is satisfied that it
is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Consistent with the above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) 	The 	Court 	AFFIRMS 	and 	ADOPTS 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Neureiter’s
Recommendation, ECF No. 25, in its entirety as an order of this Court;
(2) 	The Motion for Default Final Judgment, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED;
(3) 	Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff the following damages:
a. 	Restitution in the amount of $1,870,000.00; and
b. 	Prejudgment 	interest on 	$1,870,000.00 	at a 	rate 	of 	8% per annum,
compounded annually, from May 9, 2024 through the date of this Order,
pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102; and
c. 	Compensatory damages in the amount of $78,005.81; and
d. 	Prejudgment 	interest 	on 	$78,005.81 	at 	a 	rate 	of 	8% 	per 	annum,
compounded annually, from September 30, 2024 through the date of this
Order, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §5-12-102; and
Case No. 1:25-cv-01698-CNS-NRN Document 26 filed 01/08/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4

4
e. Post-judgment interest at a daily rate as determined by the Clerk of the
Court until Defendant complies with this judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1961; and
f. Litigation costs in an amount to be determined by the Clerk of the Court
upon Plaintiff’s timely filing of a Bill of Costs; and
(4) Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit to the Court its calculation of prejudgment interest
pursuant to paragraphs 3(b) and (d) above within TEN DAYS.
DATED this 8th day of January 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-01698-CNS-NRN Document 26 filed 01/08/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4