Ally Bank et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Filing
874
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SCHEDULING ORDER re 853 MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court as to Todd Smith, 857 Order Setting Hearing on Motion. Plaintiffs shall filed proposed findings & conclusions of law by 10/15/2015. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/14/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2015)
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 GOLDEN HILLS
TRUST
v.
7
8
LARA KARAKASEVIC, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 853
Defendants.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
On September 23, 2015, the Court set this matter for a hearing on the pending Motion for
12
Default Judgment as to Defendant Golden Hills Trust. Dkt. No. 857. As part of its Order, the
13
Court directed Plaintiffs to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by October 12,
14
2015. Plaintiffs have failed to comply. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file the
15
proposed findings and conclusions of law by October 15, 2015. The submission shall be
16
structured as outlined in Attachment A below and include all relevant legal authority and analysis
17
necessary to establish the case. Plaintiffs shall also email the proposed findings in Microsoft
18
Word format to mejpo@cand.uscourts.gov. 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, 869. 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 14, 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
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?