Ally Bank et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 807

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY JUNE 24, 2015 re 794 MOTION for Default Judgment, 795 MOTION for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/23/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALLY BANK, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00896-YGR (MEJ) Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW v. 9 10 LARA KARAKASEVIC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 794, 795 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On June 5, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file proposed findings of fact and 14 conclusions of law in support of their pending Motions for Default Judgment by June 22, 2015. 15 Dkt. No. 798. As Plaintiffs failed to comply, the Court ORDERS them to file the proposed 16 findings by June 24, 2015. The Court reminds Plaintiffs that sanctions may be imposed for failure 17 to comply with court orders. The submission shall be structured as outlined in Attachment A 18 below and include all relevant legal authority and analysis necessary to establish the case. 19 Plaintiffs shall also email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to 20 No chambers copies need to be submitted. 21 22 23 If possible, Plaintiffs shall file one document addressing both motions rather than filing two separate proposed findings and conclusions of law. IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: June 23, 2015 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 1 ATTACHMENT A 2 * * * 3 INTRODUCTION 4 (Relief sought and disposition.) BACKGROUND 5 6 (The pertinent factual and procedural background, including citations to the Complaint and 7 record. Plaintiff(s) should be mindful that only facts in the Complaint are taken as true for 8 purposes of default judgment; therefore, Plaintiff(s) should cite to the Complaint whenever 9 possible.) DISCUSSION 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 A. 12 (Include the following standard) 13 Jurisdiction and Service of Process In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine 14 whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 15 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to 16 plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over 17 both the subject matter and the parties.”). 18 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 19 (Establish the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, including citations to relevant case 20 law and United States Code provision) 21 2. Personal Jurisdiction 22 (Establish the basis for the Court’s personal jurisdiction, including citations to relevant legal 23 authority, specific to each defendant. If seeking default judgment against any out-of-state 24 defendants, this shall include a minimum contacts analysis under Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin 25 Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)). 26 3. Service of Process 27 (Establish the adequacy of the service of process on the party against whom default is requested, 28 including relevant provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.) 2 1 B. Legal Standard 2 (Include the following standard) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court, following default by a defendant, 3 4 to enter default judgment in a case. “The district court’s decision whether to enter default 5 judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In 6 determining whether default judgment is appropriate, the Ninth Circuit has enumerated the 7 following factors for the court to consider: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the 8 merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money 9 at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 12 1986). Where a default judgment is granted, the scope of relief is limited by Federal Rule of Civil 13 Procedure 54(c), which states that a “default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in 14 amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Upon entry of default, all factual allegations within 15 the complaint are accepted as true, except those allegations relating to the amount of damages. 16 TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 C. 18 (A detailed analysis of each individual Eitel factor, separated by numbered headings. Factors 2 19 (merits of substantive claims) and 3 (sufficiency of complaint) may be listed and analyzed under 20 one heading. Plaintiff(s) shall include citations to cases that are factually similar, preferably 21 within the Ninth Circuit.) 22 D. 23 (An analysis of any relief sought, including a calculation of damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, 24 with citations to relevant legal authority.) 25 Application to the Case at Bar Relief Sought 1. Damages 26 (As damages alleged in the complaint are not accepted as true, the proposed findings must 27 provide (a) legal authority establishing entitlement to such damages, and (b) citations to evidence 28 supporting the requested damages.) 3 1 2. Attorney’s Fees 2 (If attorney’s fees are sought, the proposed findings shall include the following: (1) Evidence 3 supporting the request for hours worked, including a detailed breakdown and identification of the 4 subject matter of each person’s time expenditures, accompanied by actual billing records and/or 5 time sheets; (2) Documentation justifying the requested billing rates, such as a curriculum vitae or 6 resume; (3) Evidence that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community, 7 including rate determinations in other cases of similarly complex litigation, particularly those 8 setting a rate for the plaintiff’s attorney; and (4) Evidence that the requested hours are 9 reasonable, including citations to other cases of similarly complex litigation (preferably from this District).) 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 3. Costs 12 (Any request for costs must include citations to evidence supporting the requested costs and 13 relevant legal authority establishing entitlement to such costs.) 14 15 16 CONCLUSION (Disposition, including any specific award amount(s) and judgment.) * * * 17 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?