Kunai, Inc. v. Allio Fintech Corporation

Filing 13

NOTICE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE. Signed by Judge Lisa J. Cisneros on 5/9/2024. Motions for Default Judgement due by 6/10/2024.(bns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2024)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KUNAI, INC., 7 Plaintiff, 8 NOTICE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE v. 9 ALLIO FINTECH CORPORATION, 10 Re: ECF No. 12 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 24-cv-01047-LJC 12 As the Clerk of Court has entered default against Defendant Allio Fintech Corporation 13 14 (ECF No. 12), the Court provides this notice to the parties regarding any default judgment motions 15 filed pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All motions for default 16 judgment shall be filed no later than June 10, 2024. Requests for additional time shall be made in 17 accordance with Civil Local Rule 6-3. In addition, all default judgment motions shall be filed in compliance with Civil Local 18 19 Rule 7, be structured as outlined in Attachment A below, and include all relevant legal authority 20 and analysis necessary to establish the case. If no opposition is filed by the deadline under Rule 7, 21 the moving party shall instead file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (as outlined in 22 Attachment A) by the reply deadline under Rule 7. The moving party shall also email the 23 proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to ljcpo@cand.uscourts.gov. No chambers copies 24 are required. 25 // 26 // 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: May 9, 2024 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, 18 a 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

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?