United States of America v. Internet Transaction Services, Inc.
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT HAROLD SOBEL [filed 10/19/2021; Docket No. 77 ] by Judge John F. Walter. For the reasons stated in the Plaintiff's Mot ion, and after considering the Eitel factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated that default judgment should be entered in its favor and against Defendant Harold Sobel, and that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED. (iv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
United States of America -v- Internet Transaction Services, Inc.
Date: November 18, 2021
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT HAROLD SOBEL
[filed 10/19/2021; Docket No. 77]
On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Default
Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against Defendant Harold Sobel (“Motion”). Defendant
Harold Sobel did not file an Opposition. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without
oral argument. The hearing calendared for November 22, 2021 is hereby vacated and the matter
taken off calendar. After considering the moving papers, and the arguments therein, the Court
rules as follows:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) provides for a court-ordered default judgment
following entry of default under 55(a). Local Rule 55-1 requires that the application for default
judgment be accompanied by a declaration that includes: (1) when and against what party default
was entered; (2) the identification of the pleading to which default was entered; (3) whether the
defaulting party is an infant or incompetent person, and if so, whether that person is represented
by a general guardian, committee, conservator or other representative; (4) that the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not apply; and (5) that notice has been served on the
defaulting party, if required. L.R. 55-1.
The entry of default judgment is left to the court’s sound discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616
F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Because granting or denying relief is entirely within the court’s
discretion, a defendant’s default does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to a court ordered
judgment. Id.; Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Castworld Products, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal.
2003). In deciding whether to exercise discretion to enter a default judgment, courts may consider:
Page 1 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the
sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a
dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7)
the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). “In applying this discretionary standard,
default judgments are more often granted than denied.” PepsiCo v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc., 189 F.R.D.
431, 432 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
After default has been entered against a defendant, the well-pleaded factual allegations of
the complaint are taken as true, except for those allegations relating to damages. TeleVideo
Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Geddes v. United
Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (“The general rule of law is that upon default
the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be
taken as true.”). In determining damages, the court may conduct a full evidentiary hearing, or rely
on declarations submitted by the parties. Fed. R. Civ. 55(b)(2); L.R. 55-2. However, “[a] default
judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c).
For the reasons stated in the Plaintiff’s Motion, and after considering the Eitel factors, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated that default judgment should be entered in its favor
and against Defendant Harold Sobel, and that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested injunctive relief.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. The Court signs the Final Order of Permanent
Injunction as to Defendant Harold Sobel lodged with the Court on October 19, 2021 (Docket No.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 2 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?