Millner v. Woods et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 Motion for hearing to determine amount of damages owed due to default judgment, without prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/5/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES MILLNER,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.
DR. WOODS, et al.,
Defendants.

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01209-SAB-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES OWED DUE TO
DEFAULT JUDGMENT, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 29]

I.

18

INTRODUCTION

19
20

Plaintiff James Millner is proceeding pro se in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

21

1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Woods and Hashem, in their individual

22

capacities, for deliberate indifference to a serious dental need in violation of the Eighth

23

Amendment. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.

24

(ECF No. 6.) Defendants have neither consented to nor declined to the jurisdiction of a United

25

States Magistrate Judge.

26

On September 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed proof of service of process of the summons and

27

complaint on Defendant Hashem. Despite being served with process on August 3, 2017,

28

Defendant Hashem did not respond to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.)
1

1

On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff moved for entry of default as to Defendant Hashem.

2

(ECF No. 26.) On November 15, 2017, the motion was granted. (ECF No. 27.) On November 16,

3

2017, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant Hashem pursuant to Federal Rule

4

of Civil Procedure 55(a). (ECF No. 28.)

5

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment by the Court. (ECF

6

No. 29.) In Plaintiff’s motion, he states that he seeks a hearing or inquest to determine the

7

amount of damages owed to him by Defendant Hashem. He further declares that to his

8

knowledge, Defendant Hashem is not in the military service of the United States and remains

9

employed at Kern Valley State Prison.

10

II.

11

LEGAL STANDARDS

12

Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless a claim is for a sum

13

certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation, a party must apply to the court for a

14

default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Upon entry of default, the complaint’s factual

15

allegations regarding liability are taken as true. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557,

16

560 (9th Cir. 1977); Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012). However, the

17

complaint’s factual allegations relating to the amount of damages are not taken as true. Geddes,

18

559 F.2d at 560. Accordingly, the amount of damages must be proven at an evidentiary hearing

19

or through other means. Microsoft Corp. v. Nop, 549 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1236 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

20

“[N]ecessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are

21

not established by default.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th

22

Cir. 1992). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), “[a] default judgment must not

23

differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”

24

Entry of default judgment is not a matter of right and it is within the discretion of the

25

court whether default judgment should be entered. Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. v.

26

Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 999 (N.D. Cal. 2001); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir.

27

1986). The Ninth Circuit has set forth the following factors for the court to consider in exercising

28

its discretion:
2

1
2
3

(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.

4
5

Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72.

6

Furthermore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, when an action is brought

7

alleging more than one claim or is against more than one party, the Court may direct entry of

8

final judgment against fewer than all claims or parties only if the Court expressly determines that

9

there is no just reason for delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

10

III.

11

DISCUSSION

12

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that although the Clerk of the Court has entered

13

judgment against Defendant Hashem, this case still proceeds against Defendant Woods. As

14

briefly noted above, where an action is brought against multiple parties, as in this case, the Court

15

must expressly find that there is no just reason for delay before it may enter a final judgment

16

against fewer than all the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

17

The leading case on the issue of default judgment in actions involving multiple

18

defendants is Frow v. De La Vega, 15 Wall. 552, 82 U.S. 552 (1872). See In re First T.D. & Inv.,

19

Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001). In Frow, the Supreme Court held that “where a

20

complaint alleges that defendants are jointly liable and one of them defaults, judgment should

21

not be entered against the defaulting defendant until the matter has been adjudicated with regard

22

to all defendants.” In re First T.D., 253 F.3d at 532. The possibility of inconsistent judgments

23

must be avoided. Id. The Ninth Circuit held that where the actions by the defendants and the

24

central issue are the same, the Court abuses its discretion by entering default judgment against

25

the defaulting defendant that creates inconsistent judgments against multiple defendants. Id. at

26

532-533.

27

In a recent decision by a district court, Krevat v. Burgers to Go., Inc., No. 13-cv-

28

6258(JS)(AKT), 2014 WL 4638844 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014), that court addressed authority
3

1

holding that “[w]here there are multiple defendants who may be held jointly and severally liable

2

and ‘some but not all defendants have defaulted, ‘the courts have consistently held that it is

3

appropriate to enter judgment solely as to liability and not as to the amount of damages to be

4

assessed against the defaulting party. . . .” 2014 WL 4638844, at *15. This avoids the issue of

5

dealing with inconsistent damage inquests. Id. Since the complaint in the action alleged that the

6

defendants acted in concert or participation, the court held it would be prudent to defer ruling on

7

damages until the claims against the remaining defendant had been adjudicated. Id.

8

In sum, these cases hold that in certain circumstances it is inappropriate to enter a default

9

judgment against one defendant until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all

10

defendants. Therefore, a court may find it should defer ruling on damages as to one claim against

11

one defendant until the claims against all defendants are finally determined.

12

In this action, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants Woods and Hashem were dentists

13

both employed by CDCR, and both treating him while he was housed at Kern Valley State

14

Prison. He alleges that both of them were aware of deterioration of his teeth as well as pain and

15

discomfort to him, but they failed to treat him, resulting in extensive damage and considerable

16

pain. Plaintiff appears to be alleging that he was treated simultaneously by these two Defendants.

17

Plaintiff should be mindful that if he applies for a default judgment against Defendant

18

Hashem, the Court will be required to find whether there is a danger of inconsistent judgments

19

making it prudent to defer ruling on a damages award against Defendant Hashem until this action

20

is resolved regarding Defendant Woods. Thus, Plaintiff’s application should address this issue.

21

Also, Plaintiff has not submitted any application for default judgment. Therefore, he has

22

not articulated what amount of damages he seeks or submitted any evidence for the Court to

23

consider in support, nor has Plaintiff explained what evidentiary issues would be addressed in

24

any hearing.

25

Rule 55 does not require that testimony be presented as a prerequisite to the entry of a

26

default judgment. United States v. Borchers, 163 F.2d 347, 349 (2d Cir. 1947) (“Moreover, as we

27

understand the language of Rule 55(b)(2), it does not appear that testimony had to be presented

28

to obtain a judgment by default.”); see also United States v. Cabrera-Diaz, 106 F. Supp. 2d 234,
4

1

243 (D.P.R. 2000) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,

2

Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3D § 2688 (2001)). The court has discretion to determine

3

whether evidence to support a claim for damages should be presented at a hearing, or

4

alternatively, whether a review of detailed affidavits and documentary evidence is sufficient. See

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming

6

default judgment with damages assessed based on documentary evidence); Fustok v. Conti

7

Commodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989) (court has discretion to hold evidentiary

8

hearing, or to rely solely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence to evaluate damages).

9

As Plaintiff has not submitted an application for default judgment showing that he has

10

met the standards discussed above, the Court does not have sufficient information to determine

11

whether any evidentiary hearing is necessary under the circumstances of this case.

12

As a result of the foregoing, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing, without

13

prejudice to Plaintiff re-raising the request in any application for a default judgment pursuant to

14

Rule 55.

15

IV.

16

ORDER
For the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an

17
18

evidentiary hearing is denied, without prejudice.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

December 5, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5