Win Transport Inc v. California Freedom Trans LLC, et al

Filing 20

BRIEFING ORDER re 19 MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court as to California Freedom Trans, LLC filed by Win Transport Inc. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 2/4/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WIN TRANSPORT INC,

Case No. 14-cv-04178-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOTION

v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CALIFORNIA FREEDOM TRANS LLC, et
al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Defendants.

12
13

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff Win Transport Inc filed a Motion for Default Judgment.

14

Dkt. No. 19. All briefing shall be in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7, including opposition and

15

reply filing deadlines. However, if no opposition is filed by the deadline under Rule 7, Plaintiff

16

shall instead file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by February 25, 2015. The

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

proposed findings need to be submitted.

21
22
23

Plaintiff is ordered to 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.

24
25
26
27
28

Dated: February 4, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

1

ATTACHMENT A

2

* * *

3

INTRODUCTION

4

(Relief sought and disposition.)

5

BACKGROUND

6

(The pertinent factual and procedural background, including citations to the Complaint and record.

7

Plaintiff(s) should be mindful that only facts in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of

8

default judgment; therefore, Plaintiff(s) should cite to the Complaint whenever possible.)
DISCUSSION

9
A.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(Include the following standard.)

12

Jurisdiction and Service of Process

In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine

13

whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d

14

707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to

15

plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over

16

both the subject matter and the parties.”).

17

1.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

18

(Establish the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, including citations to relevant case

19

law and United States Code provisions.)

20

2.

Personal Jurisdiction

21

(Establish the basis for the Court’s personal jurisdiction, including citations to relevant legal

22

authority, specific to each defendant. If seeking default judgment against any out-of-state

23

defendants, this shall include a minimum contacts analysis under Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin

24

Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)).

25

3.

Service of Process

26

(Establish the adequacy of the service of process on the party against whom default is requested,

27

including relevant provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.)

28
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

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