Mountz, Inc. v. Northeast Industrial Bolting and Torque, LLC.

Filing 14

NOTICE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 2/1/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MOUNTZ, INC., Case No. 15-cv-04538-MEJ Plaintiff, 7 NOTICE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE v. 8 9 NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL BOLTING AND TORQUE, LLC., 10 Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 As the Clerk of Court has entered default against Northeast Industrial Bolting and Torque, 13 LLC (see Dkt. No. 13), the Court provides this notice to the parties regarding any default 14 judgment motions filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). All motions shall be 15 filed in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7, be structured as outlined in Attachment A below, and 16 include all relevant legal authority and analysis necessary to establish the case. If no opposition is 17 filed by the deadline under Rule 7, the moving party shall instead file proposed findings of fact 18 and conclusions of law (as outlined in Attachment A) by the reply deadline under Rule 7. The 19 moving party shall also email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to 20 No chambers copies of the proposed findings need to be submitted. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: February 1, 2016 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 1 ATTACHMENT A 2 * * * 3 INTRODUCTION 4 5 (Relief sought and disposition.) BACKGROUND 6 7 8 9 10 (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, except for damages; therefore, Plaintiff(s) should cite to the Complaint whenever possible.) DISCUSSION 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, 2 1 including relevant provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.) 2 B. 3 (Include the following standard) Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court, following default by a defendant, 4 to enter default judgment in a case. “The district court’s decision whether to enter default 6 judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In 7 determining whether default judgment is appropriate, the Ninth Circuit has enumerated the 8 following factors for the court to consider: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the 9 merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money 10 at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether default 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 13 1986). Where a default judgment is granted, the scope of relief is limited by Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 54(c), which states that a “default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in 15 amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Upon entry of default, all factual allegations within 16 the complaint are accepted as true, except those allegations relating to the amount of damages. 17 TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). 18 C. 19 (A detailed analysis of each individual Eitel factor, separated by numbered headings. Factors 2 20 (merits of substantive claims) and 3 (sufficiency of complaint) may be listed and analyzed under 21 one heading. Plaintiff(s) shall include citations to cases that are factually similar, preferably 22 within the Ninth Circuit.) 23 D. 24 (An analysis of any relief sought, including a calculation of damages, attorneys’ fees, etc., with 25 citations to relevant legal authority.) 26 Application to the Case at Bar Relief Sought 1. Damages 27 (As damages alleged in the complaint are not accepted as true, the proposed findings must 28 provide (a) legal authority establishing entitlement to such damages, and (b) citations to evidence 3 1 2 supporting the requested damages.) 2. Attorney’s Fees 3 (If attorney’s fees and costs are sought, the proposed findings shall include the following: (1) 4 Evidence supporting the request for hours worked, including a detailed breakdown and 5 identification of the subject matter of each person’s time expenditures, accompanied by actual 6 billing records and/or time sheets; (2) Documentation justifying the requested billing rates, such 7 as a curriculum vitae or resume; (3) Evidence that the requested rates are in line with those 8 prevailing in the community, including rate determinations in other cases of similarly complex 9 litigation, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiff’s attorney; and (4) Evidence that the requested hours are reasonable, including citations to other cases of similarly complex litigation 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 (preferably from this District). 12 3. Costs 13 (Any request for costs must include citations to evidence supporting the requested costs and 14 relevant legal authority establishing entitlement to such costs.) 15 16 17 CONCLUSION (Disposition, including any specific award amount(s) and judgment.) * * * 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?