Joseph Ercoli v. JLC Productions et al

Filing 32

ORDER for additional briefing. The court requests additional information regarding the plaintiff's default-judgment motion and directs that it be submitted by August 10, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. The matter remains on calendar for August 11 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 8/5/2016. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

JOSEPH ERCOLI,

13

Case No. 15-cv-06333-YGR (LB)

Plaintiff,

12
v.

14

TOP SHELF CLASSICS,

15

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FOR MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Re: ECF No. 26

16
17

The plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 26.) The court appreciates the

18

plaintiff’s briefing of the Eitel factors. (See ECF No. 26-1 at 3–6.) In addition to the Eitel factors,

19

though, the court must determine three preliminary matters in a default-judgment case: 1) whether

20

it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action; 2) whether it has personal jurisdiction over the

21

defendant; and 3) whether service was proper. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999);

22

Timbuktu Educ. v. Alkaraween Islamic Bookstore, No. C 06–03025 JSW, 2007 WL 1544790,

23

at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2007). The court requests that the plaintiff submit additional briefing

24

regarding personal jurisdiction over Top Shelf Classics and the propriety of service. In particular,

25

with respect to service, the court requests additional briefing as to why substitute service at the

26

Hercules, California “mail box store” address was proper. (See ECF No. 18.) The plaintiff

27

previously informed the court that it had difficulty identifying a “reliable address” for Top Shelf,

28
ORDER (No. 15-cv-06333-YGR (LB))

1

see ECF No. 16 at 2, and identifies Top Shelf as an “unknown entity,” see ECF No. 18 at 2.

2

Without additional information, the court cannot determine if service was proper.

3

The court also requests that the plaintiff submit additional information for the damages and

4

attorney’s fees he seeks. First, with respect statutory damages, the court requests that the plaintiff

5

submit additional evidence as to why — if at all — the statutory damages sought plausibly relate

6

to his actual damages. See Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Tilley, No. C 09-1085 PJH, 2010 WL 309249, at *5

7

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2010); see also Jones v. Collectal Associates, No. 15-cv-02223-JCS, 2016 WL

8

721279, at * 4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016). Second, with respect to attorney’s fees, the court requests

9

that the plaintiff submit evidence supporting the number of hours billed. He may submit actual
itemized billing records or a chart showing the hours worked on specific tasks. This is necessary

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

for the court to determine whether the approximately twenty-five hours spent on the matter was

12

reasonable. (See ECF No. 26-2, ¶ 7.)

13
14

The court orders the plaintiff to file this additional briefing and supporting evidence by August
10, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. The matter remains on calendar for a hearing on August 11 at 9:30 a.m.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: August 5, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER (No.15-cv-06333-YGR (LB))

2