Persin v. Mathews et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
GINETTE PAONESSA PERSIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CLINT R. MATHEWS; FUNDING
FORCE, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 25-00001 MWJS-KJM
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE
COMPLAINT FILED JANUARY 2,
2025
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT ON THE COMPLAINT FILED JANUARY 2, 2025
On May 22, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendants
Clint R. Mathews (“Defendant Mathews”) and Funding Force, LLC (“Defendant
Funding Force”) (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No. 22. On August 28, 2025,
Plaintiff Ginette Paonessa Persin (“Plaintiff”) filed a Renewed Motion for Default
Judgment on the Complaint Filed January 2, 2025 (“Renewed Motion”). ECF
No. 35. On September 10, 2025, Defendant Mathews filed a statement on his own
behalf, asking the Court to deny the Renewed Motion. ECF No. 38.
That same day, Defendant Mathews filed a Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s
Entries of Default (ECF Nos. 21, 22) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) (“Motion to
Set Aside Default”). ECF No. 37. On October 29, 2025, the Court issued an Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Motion to Set Aside Default. ECF
Case 1:25-cv-00001-MWJS-KJM Document 46 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

2
No. 45. The Court set aside the entry of default as to Defendant Mathews, but not
as to Defendant Funding Force. Id. at 8.
The Court elects to decide the Renewed Motion without a hearing pursuant
to Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii. After carefully considering the memoranda, applicable law,
and record in this case, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district
court DENY the Renewed Motion for the reasons set forth below.
On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se at the time, filed a
Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Breach of Contract (“Complaint”). ECF
No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that she and Defendant Funding Force entered into a
Master Investment Agreement (“Agreement”). ECF No. 1 at 4; see also id. at 6–7.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Funding Force owes Plaintiff money pursuant to
the Agreement. Id. at 4. In the Renewed Motion, Plaintiff claims that Defendants
are jointly and severally liable. ECF No. 35 at 12–13.
The Ninth Circuit has found that “where a complaint alleges that defendants
are jointly liable and one of them defaults, judgment should not be entered against
the defaulting defendant until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all
defendants.” In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing
Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (1872)). “The purpose of this rule is to prevent
‘an incongruous and unfair’ outcome that ‘allow[s] a plaintiff to prevail against the
defaulting defendant on a legal theory that may be ultimately rejected with regard
Case 1:25-cv-00001-MWJS-KJM Document 46 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

3
to the answering defendant in the same action.’” United States v. Nguyen, CIV.
NO. 19-00562 DKW-RT, 2021 WL 4256483, at *4 (D. Haw. Aug. 30, 2021)
(other citations omitted) (quoting Ferrari Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Yokoyama, Civ. No.
18-00136 JAO-RLP, 2018 WL 4610870, at *2 (D. Haw. Sept. 6, 2018), adopted by
2018 WL 4609933 (D. Haw. Sept. 25, 2018)), adopted sub nom. by United States
v. TWOL, LLC, CV 19-00562 DKW-RT, 2021 WL 4256285 (D. Haw. Sept. 17,
2021).
Given that the Court has set aside the entry of default as to Defendant
Mathews, there is a risk of inconsistency between a default judgment entered
against Defendant Funding Force and a decision on the merits as to Defendant
Mathews. This risk of inconsistency weighs strongly against entry of default
judgment. DuFour v. Allen, 2:14-cv-05616-CAS(SSx), 2015 WL 12777226, at *5
(C.D. Cal. June 22, 2015). The Court thus FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the
district court DENY Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment on the
Complaint Filed January 2, 2025 (ECF No. 35).
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 30, 2025.
Persin v. Mathews, et al., Civil No. 25-00001 MWJS-KJM; Findings and Recommendation to
Deny Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment on the Complaint Filed January 2, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-00001-MWJS-KJM Document 46 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 3
PageID.<pageID>