Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. GW Consulting Civil Engineers

Filing 24

ORDER re briefing instructions for 20 Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant GW Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 12/20/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

PENSION PLAN FOR PENSION TRUST
FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

9

Case No. 14-cv-03388-MEJ
ORDER RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 20

v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GW CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,
INC.,
Defendant.

13
14

On October 20, 2014, Plaintiffs Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating

15

Engineers, Russell Burns, and Richard Piombo filed a Motion for Default Judgment. Dkt. No. 20.

16

All briefing shall be in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7. However, if no opposition is filed,

17

Plaintiffs shall file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by November 20, 2014. The

18

submission shall be structured as outlined in Attachment A below and include all relevant legal

19

authority and analysis necessary to establish the case. Plaintiffs shall also email the proposed

20

findings in Microsoft Word format to [e-mail]. No chambers copies of the

21

proposed findings need to be submitted.

22
23
24

Plaintiffs shall serve this notice upon all other parties in this action. Please contact the
courtroom deputy, Rose Maher, at [phone] with any questions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: October 20, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

1

ATTACHMENT A

2

* * *

3

I. INTRODUCTION

4
5

(Relief sought and disposition.)
II. BACKGROUND

6
7
8
9

(The pertinent factual and procedural background, including citations to the Complaint and record.
Plaintiff(s) should be mindful that only facts in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of
default judgment; therefore, Plaintiff(s) should cite to the Complaint whenever possible.)
III. DISCUSSION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A.

Jurisdiction and Service of Process

(Include the following standard.)
In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine
whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d
707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to
plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over
both the subject matter and the parties.”).
1.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

(Establish the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, including citations to relevant case
law and United States Code provisions.)
2.

Personal Jurisdiction

(Establish the basis for the Court’s personal jurisdiction, including citations to relevant legal
authority, specific to each defendant. If seeking default judgment against any out-of-state
defendants, this shall include a minimum contacts analysis under Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin
Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)).
3.

Service of Process

(Establish the adequacy of the service of process on the party against whom default is requested,
including relevant provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.)
2

1

B.

Legal Standard

2

(Include the following standard)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court, following default by a defendant,

3
4

to enter default judgment in a case. “The district court’s decision whether to enter default

5

judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In

6

determining whether default judgment is appropriate, the Ninth Circuit has enumerated the

7

following factors for the court to consider: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the

8

merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money

9

at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether default
was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.

12

1986). Where a default judgment is granted, the scope of relief is limited by Federal Rule of Civil

13

Procedure 54(c), which states that a “default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in

14

amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Upon entry of default, all factual allegations within

15

the complaint are accepted as true, except those allegations relating to the amount of damages.

16

TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

17

C.

18

(A detailed analysis of each individual Eitel factor, separated by numbered headings. Factors 2

19

(merits of substantive claims) and 3 (sufficiency of complaint) may be listed and analyzed under

20

one heading. Plaintiff(s) shall include citations to cases that are factually similar, preferably

21

within the Ninth Circuit.)

22

D.

23

(An analysis of any relief sought, including a calculation of damages, attorneys’ fees, etc., with

24

citations to relevant legal authority. As damages alleged in the complaint are not accepted as true,

25

the proposed findings must provide citations to evidence supporting the requested damages. If

26

attorneys’ fees and costs are sought, the proposed findings shall include the following: (1)

27

Evidence supporting the request for hours worked, including a detailed breakdown and

28

identification of the subject matter of each person’s time expenditures, accompanied by actual

Application to the Case at Bar

Relief Sought

3

1

billing records and/or time sheets; (2) Documentation justifying the requested billing rates, such as

2

a curriculum vitae or resume; (3) Evidence that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing

3

in the community, including rate determinations in other cases of similarly complex litigation,

4

particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiff’s attorney; and (4) Evidence that the requested

5

hours are reasonable, including citations to other cases of similarly complex litigation (preferably

6

from this District)).

7
8
9

IV. CONCLUSION
(Disposition, including any specific award amount(s) and judgment.)
* * *

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4