Xing Zhao v. TradeGo Forex Exchange, et al.

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE XING ZHAO, CASE NO. C23-1821-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. TRADEGO FOREX EXCHANGE, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendants TradeGo Forex Exchange, Brandon Newbern, Ronald Greg Ameral, David Nielson, and Grand Capital (“the defaulting defendants”) (Dkt. No. 50). Having thoroughly considered the motion and the relevant record, the Court FINDS that: 19 1. Plaintiff properly served the defaulting defendants, (see Dkt. Nos. 7, 23, 24, 28, 31); 20 2. The defaulting defendants have not lodged an appearance or answered Plaintiff’s 21 pleading; 22 3. Taking the allegations in the complaint as true, Plaintiff has established that he is 23 entitled to $125,000 in recovery from the defaulting defendants for the causes of 24 action brought forth, (see generally Dkt. No. 1), along with Rule 54 costs in the 25 amount of $1,539.40; and 26 4. The factors set forth in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986) 1 support granting default judgment in Plaintiff’s favor against the defaulting 2 defendants.

3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 50) and issues judgment against the defaulting defendant in Plaintiff’s favor for $125,000 in damages, $1,539.40 in costs, and post-judgment interest in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

6 It is so ORDERED this 10th day of November 2025.

A John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE