Co., 157 F.R.D. 61, 64 (D.Kan.1994)). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2)(B) (“The court may conduct hearings or make referrals ... when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to ... determine the amount of damages.”). “In the absence of genuine issues of fact material to a plaintiffs damages showing, a court may appropriately address damages through summary judgment, including in cases where facts have been determined by the entry of default judgment.” Default MOO at 1233 n. 5 (citing Trustees of Const. Indus. and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 1126, 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming in part district court’s award of damages in summary judgment based on default judgment); J.R. Simplot v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 563 F.3d 1102, 1117 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. JHP Dev., 557 F.3d
recognizing that summary judgment on any and all aspects of a partys claim including damages is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment