The Board of Trustees, in their Capacities as Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California et al v. Protech Services, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER VACATING CMC. Default Judgment Motion due by 6/20/2013. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2013 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/7/2013. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 Northern District of California 6 7 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in their capacities as Trustees of the LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; LABORERS VACATION-HOLIDAY TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; and LABORERS TRAINING AND RETRAINING TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, No. C 12-1047 MEJ ORDER VACATING CMC ORDER RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTION Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 PROTECH SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, individually and doing business as PROTECH GENERAL CONTRACTING SERVICES Defendant. _____________________________________/ 18 19 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' Case Management Conference Statement, filed June 6, 20 2013. Dkt. No. 20. Upon review of Plaintiffs' statement, the Court VACATES the June 13, 2013 21 Case Management Conference. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for default judgment by June 20, 2013, 22 and the Court shall conduct a hearing on July 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 23 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. All briefing shall be in compliance with Civil Local 24 Rule 7. Plaintiffs are advised that the Court prefers that all default judgment motions be structured as 25 outlined in Attachment A below. 26 If no opposition is filed, Plaintiffs shall file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law 27 by July 11, 2013. Plaintiffs' proposed findings shall be structured as outlined in Attachment A below 28 and shall include all relevant legal authority and analysis necessary to establish the case. In addition 1 to filing, the proposed findings must be emailed to The Court strongly 2 prefers that proposed findings be emailed in WordPerfect format whenever possible, although Word 3 format is also acceptable. No chambers copies need to be submitted. 4 Plaintiffs shall serve this Order upon all other parties in this action. Please contact the 5 courtroom deputy, Rose Maher, at (415) 522-4708 with any questions. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: June 7, 2013 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ATTACHMENT A 1 2 3 * * * 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 (Relief sought and disposition.) 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 (The pertinent factual and procedural background, including citations to the Complaint and record.) 8 9 A. III. DISCUSSION Jurisdiction and Service of Process 10 (Include the following standard.) In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine whether 12 it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to plead or 14 otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the 15 subject matter and the parties.”). 16 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 17 (Establish the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, including citations to relevant case law 18 and United States Code provisions.) 19 2. Personal Jurisdiction 20 (Establish the basis for the Court’s personal jurisdiction, including citations to relevant legal 21 authority. If seeking default judgment against any out-of-state defendants, this shall include a 22 minimum contacts analysis under Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th 23 Cir. 2004)). 24 3. Service of Process 25 (Establish the adequacy of the service of process on the party against whom default is requested, 26 including relevant provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.) 27 28 3 1 B. Legal Standard 2 (Include the following standard) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court, following default by a defendant, to 4 enter default judgment in a case. “The district court’s decision whether to enter default judgment is a 5 discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In determining whether 6 default judgment is appropriate, the Ninth Circuit has enumerated the following factors for the court 7 to consider: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive 8 claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the 9 possibility of dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether default was due to excusable neglect; and 10 (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the 12 granted, the scope of relief is limited by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), which states that a For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Where a default judgment is 13 “default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the 14 pleadings.” Upon entry of default, all factual allegations within the complaint are accepted as true, 15 except those allegations relating to the amount of damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 16 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 C. Application to the Case at Bar 18 (A breakdown of each individual factor in Eitel, separated by numbered headings. Factors 2 (merits 19 of substantive claims) and 3 (sufficiency of complaint) may be listed under one heading. Plaintiff 20 shall include citations to cases that are factually similar, preferably within the Ninth Circuit.) 21 D. Relief Sought 22 (An analysis of any relief sought, including damages, attorneys’ fees, etc., with citations to relevant 23 legal authority. If attorneys’ fees and costs are sought, the proposed findings shall include the 24 following: (1) Evidence supporting the request for hours worked, including a breakdown and 25 identification of the subject matter of each person’s time expenditures, accompanied by actual billing 26 records and/or time sheets; (2) Documentation justifying the requested billing rates, such as a 27 curriculum vitae or resume; (3) Evidence that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in 28 4 1 the community, including rate determinations in other cases of similarly complex litigation, 2 particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiff’s attorney; and (4) Evidence that the requested hours 3 are reasonable, including citations to other cases of similarly complex litigation (preferably from this 4 District)). 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 (Disposition, including any specific award amount(s) and judgment.) 7 * * * 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?