J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Segura
Filing
25
ORDER re 21 MOTION for Default Judgment. Plaintiff to submit a proposed order and supplemental briefing by the reply deadline, ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 21 MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court as to JESUS SEGURA : Motion Hearing set for 4/5/2018 01:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 2/20/2018. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2018)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-05335-YGR (KAW)
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9
JESUS SEGURA,
Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT; ORDER
SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 21
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. filed a Motion for Default
12
13
Judgment, which was referred to the undersigned for report and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 21.)
14
All 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 below and include all relevant legal authority and analysis necessary to establish the
18
case. Plaintiff shall also email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word (.docx) format to
19
kawpo@cand.uscourts.gov. No chambers copies of the proposed order need to be submitted.
Should Plaintiff seek the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs, it is ordered to file a
20
21
supplemental brief not to exceed 8 pages, plus any supporting declaration(s), also by the reply
22
filing deadline. As such, the undersigned expects the attorneys’ fees and costs analysis to be
23
included in the proposed order.
The hearing on the motion for default judgment is set for April 5, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in
24
25
Courtroom 4, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California.
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
Plaintiff is ordered to serve this notice upon all other parties in this action.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4
5
Dated: February 20, 2018
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
ATTACHMENT A
3
* * *
4
INTRODUCTION
5
(Relief sought and disposition.)
6
I.
BACKGROUND
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.)
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
(Include the following standard)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court to enter a final judgment in a case
14
following a defendant’s default. Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d
15
995, 999 (N.D. Cal. 2001). Whether to enter a judgment lies within the court’s discretion. Id. at
16
999 (citing Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986)).
17
Before assessing the merits of a default judgment, a court must confirm that it has subject
18
matter jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over the parties, as well as ensure the
19
adequacy of service on the defendant. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). If the
20
court finds these elements satisfied, it turns to the following factors (“the Eitel factors”) to
21
24
determine whether it should grant a default judgment:
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of
plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4)
the sum of money at stake in the action[,] (5) the possibility of a
dispute concerning material facts[,] (6) whether the default was due
to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decision on the merits.
25
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Upon entry of default,
26
all factual allegations within the complaint are accepted as true, except those allegations relating to
27
the amount of damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).
28
Where a default judgment is granted, the scope of relief “must not differ in kind from, or exceed in
3
22
23
1
amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c).
2
3
4
5
III.
A.
DISCUSSION
Jurisdiction and Service of Process
(Include the following standard)
In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine
6
whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d
7
707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to
8
plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over
9
both the subject matter and the parties.”).
10
i.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
(Establish the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, including citations to relevant case
12
law and United States Code provisions.)
13
ii.
Personal Jurisdiction
14
(Establish the basis for the Court’s personal jurisdiction, including citations to relevant legal
15
authority, specific to each defendant. If seeking default judgment against any out-of-state
16
defendants, this shall include a minimum contacts analysis under Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin
17
Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)).
18
iii.
Service of Process
19
(Establish the adequacy of the service of process on the party against whom default is requested,
20
including relevant provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.)
21
B.
Application to the Case at Bar
22
(A detailed analysis of each individual Eitel factor, separated by numbered headings. Factors 2
23
(merits of substantive claims) and 3 (sufficiency of complaint) may be listed and analyzed under
24
one heading. Plaintiff(s) shall include citations to cases that are factually similar, preferably
25
within the Ninth Circuit.)
26
IV.
RELIEF SOUGHT
27
(An analysis of any relief sought, including a calculation of damages, attorneys’ fees, etc., with
28
citations to relevant legal authority.)
4
1
1.
Damages
2
(As damages alleged in the complaint are not accepted as true, the proposed findings must
3
provide (a) legal authority establishing entitlement to such damages, and (b) citations to evidence
4
supporting the requested damages.)
5
2.
Attorney’s Fees
6
(If attorney’s fees and costs are sought, the proposed findings shall include the following: (1)
7
Evidence supporting the request for hours worked, including a detailed breakdown and
8
identification of the subject matter of each person’s time expenditures, accompanied by actual
9
billing records and/or time sheets; (2) Documentation justifying the requested billing rates, such
as a curriculum vitae or resume; (3) Evidence that the requested rates are in line with those
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
prevailing in the community, including rate determinations in other cases of similarly complex
12
litigation, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiff’s attorney; and (4) Evidence that the
13
requested hours are reasonable, including citations to other cases of similarly complex litigation
14
(preferably from this District).
15
3.
Costs
16
(Any request for costs must include citations to evidence supporting the requested costs and
17
relevant legal authority establishing entitlement to such costs.)
18
19
20
V.
CONCLUSION
(Disposition, including any specific award amount(s) and judgment.)
* * *
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?