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)

Download PDF
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?