Hilda & Alice, Inc. v. Miguel Romo et al

Filing 13

ORDER re 12 MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court as to Kristian Segura filed by Hilda & Alice, Inc. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 09/21/2015. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HILDA & ALICE, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-03294-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT

9
10

KRISTIAN SEGURA,

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On September 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 12.) All

14

briefing shall be in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7, including opposition and reply filing

15

deadlines. However, if no opposition is filed by the deadline under Rule 7, Plaintiff shall instead

16

file a proposed order by the reply deadline. The submission shall be structured as outlined in

17

Attachment A and include all relevant legal authority and analysis necessary to establish the case.

18

Plaintiff shall also email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word (.docx) format to

19

[e-mail]. No chambers copies of the proposed order need to be submitted.

20

Plaintiff is ordered to serve this notice upon all other parties in this action.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: 09/21/2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
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 provisions.)

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
2

B.

Legal Standard

3

(Include the following 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, attorneys’ fees, etc., with

25

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 and costs are sought, the proposed findings shall include the following: (1)

4

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

5

identification of the subject matter of each person’s time expenditures, accompanied by actual

6

billing records and/or time sheets; (2) Documentation justifying the requested billing rates, such

7

as a curriculum vitae or resume; (3) Evidence that the requested rates are in line with those

8

prevailing in the community, including rate determinations in other cases of similarly complex

9

litigation, particularly those 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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(preferably from this 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