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

Filing 869

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SCHEDULING ORDER re 836 MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court as to Lara Karakasevic, 848 Order Setting Hearing on Motion. Plaintiffs shall filed proposed findings & conclusions of law by 10/8/2015. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/7/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ALLY BANK, et al.,

Case No. 11-cv-00896-YGR (MEJ)

Plaintiffs,
6

ORDER RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOTION AS TO LARA
KARAKASEVIC

v.
7
8

LARA KARAKASEVIC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 836

Defendants.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

On September 18, 2015, the Court set this matter for a hearing on the pending Motion for

12

Default Judgment as to Defendant Lara Karakasevic. Dkt. No. 848. As part of its Order, the

13

Court directed Plaintiffs to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by October 6,

14

2015. Plaintiffs have failed to comply. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file the

15

proposed findings and conclusions of law by October 8, 2015. The submission shall be structured

16

as outlined in Attachment A below and include all relevant legal authority and analysis necessary

17

to establish the case. Plaintiffs shall also email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to

18

[e-mail]. No chambers copies need to be submitted.

19

The Plaintiffs in this case have failed to comply with the Court’s scheduling orders in the

20

past. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 783, 807. They should be mindful that failure to comply with court

21

orders may result in the imposition of sanctions, including denial of pending default judgment

22

motions.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27
28

Dated: October 7, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

1
2

ATTACHMENT A

3

* * *

4

INTRODUCTION

5

(Relief sought and disposition.)
BACKGROUND

6
7

(The pertinent factual and procedural background, including citations to the Complaint and

8

record. Plaintiff(s) should be mindful that only facts in the Complaint are taken as true for

9

purposes of default judgment; therefore, Plaintiff(s) should cite to the Complaint whenever

10

possible.)
DISCUSSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

A.

13

(Include the following standard)

14

Jurisdiction and Service of Process

In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine

15

whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d

16

707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to

17

plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over

18

both the subject matter and the parties.”).

19

1.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

20

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

21

law and United States Code provision)

22

2.

Personal Jurisdiction

23

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

24

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

25

defendants, this shall include a minimum contacts analysis under Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin

26

Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)).

27
28

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, attorney’s fees, and costs,

25

with 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 are sought, the proposed findings shall include the following: (1) Evidence

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

including rate determinations in other cases of similarly complex litigation, particularly those

9

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 (preferably from this

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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