Chapman v. Harjot Markets, Inc., et al
Filing
10
NOTICE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 2/12/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2016)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
BYRON CHAPMAN,
Case No. 15-cv-05262-MEJ
Plaintiff,
7
NOTICE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT
PROCEDURE
v.
8
9
HARJOT MARKETS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
As the Clerk of Court has entered default against << name of party in default >> (see Dkt.
13
No. << default docket number >>), the Court provides this notice to the parties regarding any
14
default judgment motions filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). All motions
15
shall be filed in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7, be structured as outlined in Attachment A
16
below, and include all relevant legal authority and analysis necessary to establish the case. If no
17
opposition is filed by the deadline under Rule 7, the moving party shall instead file proposed
18
findings of fact and conclusions of law (as outlined in Attachment A) by the reply deadline under
19
Rule 7. The moving party shall also email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to
20
mejpo@cand.uscourts.gov. 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 12, 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?