Charter Asset Management Fund, L.P. v. TCG Services, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER for additional briefing. The court asks for additional briefing and substantiating evidence on the motion for default judgment to be submitted by August 11, 2016. The court resets the hearing on the matter for August 25, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/26/2016. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

CHARTER ASSET MANAGEMENT
FUND, L.P.,

Case No. 15-cv-05799-LB

Plaintiff,
13

ORDER REGARDING ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FOR MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT

v.
14
15

TCG SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 20

Defendants.
16
The plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 20.) The Ninth Circuit has set forth
17
seven factors for consideration by the district court in exercising its discretion to enter default
18

judgment: 1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; 2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive

19
claim; 3) the sufficiency of the complaint; 4) the sum of money at stake in the action; 5) the
20
possibility of dispute concerning material facts; 6) whether default was due to excusable neglect;
21
and 7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the
22
merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). When assessing these
23
factors, all factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true, except those with regard to
24
damages. See Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). Allegations
25

of damage are not deemed true simply because of the defendant’s default. Some proof of the

26
amount is required. See Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977).
27

The court asks the plaintiff to brief why — under the Eitel factors — default judgment should

28
ORDER (No.15-cv-05799-LB)

1

be entered. The court further asks the plaintiff to brief the issues of subject-matter jurisdiction,

2

personal jurisdiction, and service. The court is particularly concerned about exercising personal

3

jurisdiction over Mr. Combs, whose guaranty does not contain a forum-selection clause and does

4

not appear to specifically incorporate the Factoring Agreements’ forum-selection clause (the

5

apparent basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over both defendants).

6

The court also requests that the plaintiff supply additional evidence supporting the attorney’s

7

fees it seeks, in particular, to substantiate Ms. Harbaugh’s billing rate. The plaintiff should

8

additionally be prepared to provide substantiating evidence for the attorney’s fees it seeks in

9

connection with the default judgment motion (i.e. the time spent preparing the motion).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The court asks that the additional briefing and substantiating evidence be submitted by August
11, 2016. The court resets the hearing on the matter for August 25, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: July 26, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER (No.15-cv-05799-LB)

2