RLI Insurance Company v. Augusta Contracting LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RLI INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUGUSTA CONTRACTING, LLC and
NATE MOSER CONSULTING, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-1419-SLP
O R D E R
Before the Court is RLI Insurance Company’s Motion for Default Judgment [Doc.
No. 12]. Defendants Augusta Contracting, LLC and Nate Moser Consulting, Inc.
(collectively, Defendants) have not responded to the Motion. For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
I. Background / Plaintiff’s Claims
On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff, RLI Insurance Company (Plaintiff) filed this action
alleging a breach of contract claim and further seeking recovery of attorney’s fees and costs
and specific performance of “its collateral rights to protect it from loss.” Compl. [Doc. No.
1], ¶¶ 13-18. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of a General Indemnity Agreement dated
September 29, 2023 (the Indemnity Agreement) entered into by Defendants in favor of
RLI. See Indemnity Agreement [Doc. No. 1-1].
Case 5:25-cv-01419-SLP Document 13 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 5

2
II. Procedural History
Defendants were timely served with the Complaint on December 16, 2025. See
Returns of Service [Doc. Nos. 5 and 6]. Defendants have failed to answer or otherwise
respond to the Complaint and the time for doing so has expired. On January 28, 2026, the
Clerk of Court entered default. See Clerk’s Entry of Default [Doc. No. 11]. The record,
therefore, reflects that Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural requirements for entry of a
default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).
III. Jurisdiction
Initially, the Court must consider both whether subject matter exists and whether
the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is proper. See, e.g., Bixler v. Foster,
596 F.3d 751, 761 (10th Cir. 2010); Marcus Food Co. v. DiPanfilo, 671 F.3d 1159, 1169-
70 (10th Cir. 2011); Williams v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 1986).
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). The parties are citizens of different states. See Compl., ¶¶ 1-3. Additionally,
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interests and costs. See Compl.,
¶ 4, 24.
B. Personal Jurisdiction
The Court has considered the pleadings and concludes that it has personal
jurisdiction over Defendants. See, e.g., Sharpshooter Spectrum Venture, LLC v.
Consentino, Case No. CIV-09-0150-WDM-KLM, 2011 WL 3159094, at *2 (D. Colo. July
26, 2011) (“[W]here, as here, the issue is determined on the basis of the pleadings and
Case 5:25-cv-01419-SLP Document 13 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 5

3
affidavits, that burden may be met by a prima facie showing.”) (footnote omitted) (citing
Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2011)).
IV. Uncontested Facts / Liability
“[T]he entry of default judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district
court.” Tripodi v. Welch, 810 F.3d 761, 764 (10th Cir. 2016). Upon an entry of default,
the Court takes all the well-pleaded facts in a complaint as true. Id. at 765 (10th Cir. 2016)
(noting that after default is entered, “a defendant admits to a complaint’s well-pleaded facts
and forfeits his or her ability to contest those facts.”) (citation omitted); United States v.
Craighead, 176 Fed. App’x 922, 924 (10th Cir. 2006) (“The defendant, by his default,
admits the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the
judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established.”). However,
the Court need not accept the moving party’s legal conclusions or factual allegations
relating to the amount of damages sought.
Therefore, before granting a default judgment, the Court must first ascertain whether
the uncontested facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does
not admit mere conclusions of law. See, e.g., Mathiason v. Aquinas Home Health Care,
Inc., 187 F. Supp. 3d 1269, 1274-75 (D. Kan. 2016) (“Even after default, it remains for the
court to consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate basis for the entry
of a judgment since a party in default does not admit conclusions of law.”).
Case 5:25-cv-01419-SLP Document 13 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 5

4
A. Breach of Contract
Plaintiff seeks default judgment on its breach of contract claim against Defendants.
Under Oklahoma law, to recover for breach of contract, a party must prove: (1) the
formation of a contract; (2) a breach thereof; and (3) actual damages as a result of the
breach. Valley View Agri, LLC v. Producers Coop Oil Mill, Case No. CIV-15-1297-D,
2017 WL 1208670 at *2 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2017).
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a breach of contract claim against Defendants.
Plaintiff has included the Indemnity Agreement and the Demand Letter issued to
Defendants. See Doc. Nos. 1-1 and 1-3. Plaintiff has shown that Defendants breached the
Indemnity Agreement. See Compl., ¶¶ 13-18 And Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has
suffered actual damages as a result. Thus, Plaintiff has established all the elements of a
breach of contract claim to support entry of default judgment.
B. Damages
Plaintiff represents that the amount of damages is “not fully liquidated at this time”
and that the amount of damages should be determined “after the entry of default judgment”
and upon Plaintiff’s “supplementation with a final damage figure.” The Court therefore
directs Plaintiff to file a supplement, as more fully set forth below.
C. Specific Performance
Plaintiff also requests the Court to enter default judgment on its request for specific
performance under the Indemnity Agreement. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that
Defendants pay collateral security in the amount of $550,000.00. See Indemnity
Agreement, paragraph 4. The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance. See,
Case 5:25-cv-01419-SLP Document 13 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 5

5
e.g., Guarantee Co. of N. Am. USA v. MIK, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-60825-UU, 2018 WL
4208241 at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2018).
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment [Doc. No. 12].
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that default judgment is GRANTED in favor of
Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, as to liability on Plaintiff’s breach
of contract claim and request for attorney fees and costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court RESERVES judgment as to the amount
of damages to be awarded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Plaintiff is directed to submit a
supplement within fourteen (14) days or by April 7, 2026, and provide the Court with an
accounting of its damages or request a hearing on its damages once fully liquidated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff for
specific performance against Defendants, jointly and severally, and within fourteen (14)
days of service of this Order, Defendants shall deposit with Plaintiff the sum of
$550,000.00 in good funds as collateral security.
The Court will separately enter Final Default Judgment upon its award of damages,
if any, after a hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01419-SLP Document 13 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 5