Entitlement to default judgment requires that AgWest prove that it is entitled to the damages sought. See TWC Int'l v. Greene, 889 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court's determination of damages based on written affidavit and oral testimony).

Later serving on the D&A Board does not run afoul of the Navy's procedures or constitutional Due Process requirements. See Sands v. Adams, 889 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1989) (no bias where hearing officer was supervisor to witness who testified at the disciplinary hearing); Nia v. Smelosky, No. 08-CV-1506 W JMA, 2010 WL 1626054, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2010) (no bias where hearing officer was nearby but no in location where incident took place). Accordingly, the Court finds no constitutional violation on this ground.

A plaintiff must provide proof for the damages sought. SeeTWC Int'l, Inc. v. Greene, 889 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court's determination of damages based on written affidavit and oral testimony).

A plaintiff must provide proof for the damages sought. SeeTWC Int'l, Inc. v. Greene, 889 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court's determination of damages based on written affidavit and oral testimony).

A plaintiff must provide proof for the damages sought. TWC Int'l, Inc. v. Greene, 889 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court determination of damages based on written affidavit and oral testimony); TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

Pl.'s Mot. 4, ECF 10. Plaintiff primarily repeats arguments that this Court has already rejected. Plaintiff argues that this Court's reliance on Rogers v. Fitzgerald, 889 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1989) is misplaced because Rogers "dealt with a claim for civil damages." Id.

GAM argues further that even if the election not to litigate the early shortfall were deemed a "course of performance," it would not establish that GAM had waived all its rights to consistent delivery of Product for years pursuant to the Supply Agreement.Id. at 7 (citing Emerald Equip. Sys., Inc. v. Gearheart Bros. Servs. LLC, 983 N.Y.S.2d 152, 154 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2014); Accord PWI Techs., Inc. v. CMI Worldwide, 2004 WL 1203126, at *4 (Wash. Ct. App.); Dallas Aerospace, Inc. v. CIS Air Corp., 352 F.3d 775, 783 (2d Cir. 2003); V.J. Gautieri Inc. v. State, 599 N.Y.S.2d 766, 768 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 1993); In re Roberts Holiday Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 1096, at *2 (9th Cir. 1989) (unpublished); Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v. Ceppos, 385 N.E.2d 1068, 1071-72 (N.Y. 1978); accord Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202 cmt. G (1981) ("The rule of Subsection (4) [course of performance] does not apply to action on a single occasion.").