AT&T Corporation, a New York corporation v. Interstate Holdings, LLC dba Concord Hilton, a California limited liability company

Filing 17

NOTICE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE. Signed by Judge Lisa J. Cisneros on 6/2/2023. Motions for Default Judgment due by 7/17/2023. (bns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
AT&T CORPORATION, A NEW YORK
CORPORATION,

7
8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

INTERSTATE HOLDINGS, LLC DBA
CONCORD HILTON, A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

12

Defendant.

Case No. 23-cv-00938-LJC
NOTICE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT
PROCEDURE

13
As the Clerk of Court has entered default against Interstate Holdings, LLC dba Concord

14
15

Hilton, a California limited liability company (ECF No. 13), the Court provides this notice to the

16

parties regarding any default judgment motions filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17

55(b)(2). All motions for default judgment shall be filed no later than 45 days from the date of the

18

Clerk’s entry of default. Requests for additional time shall be made in accordance with Civil

19

Local Rule 6-3.
In addition, all default judgment motions shall be filed in compliance with Civil Local

20
21

Rule 7, be structured as outlined in Attachment A below, and include all relevant legal authority

22

and analysis necessary to establish the case. If no opposition is filed by the deadline under Rule 7,

23

the moving party shall instead file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (as outlined in

24

Attachment A) by the reply deadline under Rule 7. The moving party shall also email the

25

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

26

are required.

27

//

28

//

1
2
3
4

Plaintiff shall serve this notice upon all other parties in this action and file proof of service
thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2023

5
6
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
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
2

1

ATTACHMENT A

2

***

3

I.

4

(Relief sought and disposition.)

5

II.

6

(The pertinent factual and procedural background, including citations to specific pages or paragraphs

7

in the Complaint and other competent evidence.)

8

III.

9

(Include the following standard)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

LEGAL STANDARD

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

11

to enter default judgment in a case. The decision of whether to grant or deny a request for default

12

judgment lies within the sound discretion of the district court. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503

13

F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2007).

14

At the default judgment stage, the factual allegations of the Complaint, other than those

15

pertaining to damages, are deemed admitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) (“An allegation—other than

16

one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the

17

allegation is not denied”); Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012). “However, a

18

defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.”

19

DIRECTV, Inc., 503 F.3d at 854 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Therefore,

20

“necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not

21

established by default.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992).

22

Further, the scope of relief is limited by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), which states that a

23

“default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the

24

pleadings.”

25
26
27
28

In determining whether default judgment is appropriate, the Ninth Circuit has enumerated
the following factors for courts to consider:
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of
plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4)
the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute
3

concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to
excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

1
2

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

IV.

DISCUSSION
A.

Jurisdiction and Service of Process

(Include the following standard)
In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine

8

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

9

F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). While evaluating the existence of jurisdiction, the court may

10

resolve factual disputes by “look[ing] beyond the complaint” and considering “affidavits or other

11

evidence properly brought before the court.” Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., Dist. No. 205,

12

Maricopa Cnty., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040, n.2 (9th Cir. 2003) (considering subject matter jurisdiction

13

on a 12(b)(1) motion).

14

1.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

15

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

16

and United States Code provisions)

17

2.

18

Personal Jurisdiction
a.

Basis for Personal Jurisdiction

19

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

20

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

21

this shall include a minimum contacts analysis under Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374

22

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

23

b.

Service of Process

24

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

25

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

26

B.

Eitel Factors

27

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

28

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

4

1

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

2

Ninth Circuit.)

3

C.

4

(An analysis of any relief sought, including a calculation of damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, with

5

citations to relevant legal authority.)

6

1.

Damages

7

(As damages alleged in the complaint are not accepted as true, the proposed findings must provide (a)

8

legal authority establishing entitlement to such damages, and (b) citations to evidence supporting the

9

requested damages.)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Relief Sought

2.

Attorney’s Fees

11

(If attorney’s fees are sought, the proposed findings shall include the following: (1) Evidence

12

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

13

subject matter of each person’s time expenditures, accompanied by actual billing records and/or time

14

sheets; (2) Documentation justifying the requested billing rates, such as a curriculum vitae or resume;

15

(3) Evidence that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community, including rate

16

determinations in other cases of similarly complex litigation, particularly those setting a rate for the

17

plaintiff’s attorney; and (4) Evidence that the requested hours are reasonable, including citations to

18

other cases of similarly complex litigation (preferably from this District).)

19

3.

Costs

20

(Any request for costs must include citations to evidence supporting the requested costs and relevant

21

legal authority establishing entitlement to such costs.)

22

V.

23

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

24

CONCLUSION

***

25
26
27
28
5