IntelePeer Cloud Communications, LLC v. Explore Travels, Corp.

Filing 16

ORDER to Submit Supplemental Briefing re 13 MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court as to Explore Travels, Corp. filed by IntelePeer Cloud Communications, LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 06/13/2016. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

INTELEPEER CLOUD
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 16-cv-01255-DMR
ORDER TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

v.
EXPLORE TRAVELS, CORP.,

Re: Dkt. No. 13

Defendant.
On June 1, 2016, Plaintiff IntelePeer Cloud Communications, LLC (“IntelePeer”) filed a

13

motion for default judgment. [Docket No. 13.] Having reviewed that motion, this court

14

determines that additional briefing is necessary.

15

Plaintiff must provide further information regarding the adequacy of service on Defendant.

16

See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (before assessing merits of motion for default

17

judgment, court must confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction over case and personal

18

jurisdiction over parties, as well as ensure adequacy of service on defendant). Plaintiff filed

19

Proofs of Service showing that the Complaint and the Motion for Default Judgment were served

20

on Defendant by sending the documents via certified U.S. mail. [Docket Nos. 8, 13-4].

21

However, the addresses listed for service do not match the address listed for Defendant Explore

22

Travels Corp. on the New York Department of State, Division of Corporations website. The court

23

requests an explanation regarding the discrepancy of addresses.

24

Further, the court requests supplemental briefing to support the Plaintiff’s request for

25

damages. In order to recover damages after securing a default judgment, a plaintiff must prove the

26

relief it seeks by submitting proper evidence by way of a sworn affidavit. Bd. of Trs. of the

27

Boilermaker Vacation Tr. v. Skelly, Inc., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see

28

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Televideo

1

Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)).

2

Plaintiff requests $187,797.01 in total contractual liability. Mot. at 3; see also Stachowicz

3

Decl. [Docket No. 13-1] at 1-2. The Finance Operation Director at IntelePeer, Chad Stachowicz,

4

has provided a declaration that breaks down the charges. It includes the following two charges in

5

need of supporting documentation:

6

(1) A charge of $13,037.56 from Invoice No. 81593 dated December 1, 2015. This invoice

7

was provided as Exhibit 5 of the Complaint, and represents an amount due of $1,103.00 as

8

opposed to the $13,037.56 requested in the Stachowicz Declaration. Compl. Ex. 5;

9

Stachowicz Decl. at 2. Plaintiff must explain and provide evidence for this discrepancy.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

(2) A charge of $40,000.00 dated April 1, 2016. Stachowicz Decl. at 2. This charge does
not have an invoice reference, nor is it supported elsewhere. Plaintiff must an explanation
and proper evidence supporting this request.
Plaintiff shall submit additional briefing by June 20, 2016 to address the above deficiencies
in the motion for default judgment. Any opposition or statement of non-opposition is due no later
than June 27, 2016.
Immediately upon receipt of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with a copy of
this Order and file a proof of service with the court.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2016
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2