Bush v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety

Filing 206

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 201 Motion for Default Judgment (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/3/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

JAMES ALAN BUSH,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
SUNNYVALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, et. al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:08-CV-01354-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff James Alan Bush’s Motion for Default Judgment

18

(“Motion”). ECF No. 201. Plaintiff’s Motion is supported by a declaration from Plaintiff. ECF

19

No. 202. A separate memorandum of points and authorities was not provided. The Court

20

previously found this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil

21

Local Rule 7-1(b), and vacated the hearing scheduled for November 29, 2012. ECF No. 205.

22

Having considered Plaintiff’s submissions and the relevant law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

23

Motion.

24

In the Motion, Plaintiff requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Long Thang

25

Cao. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that he be granted a “declaration of fact based on the

26

allegations made against [Mr. Cao] as set forth in the amended complaint.” Id.

27
28

The Ninth Circuit has articulated the following factors for courts to consider in determining
whether default judgment is appropriate:
1
Case No.: 5:08-CV-01354-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5

(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 decisions on the merits.
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).
In this case, the Court finds the second, third, and fifth factors particularly persuasive. The

6

factual allegations in the Complaint that pertain to Mr. Cao are relatively sparse. Specifically,

7

Plaintiff states that “Defendant, Long Cao, took a number of actions that contributed to the major

8

human rights abuses that took place, which began on February 23rd, 2006, and continue until this

9

day. He was present at the time; and, apparently, his purpose was to prevent and interfere with

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

discovery of the acts of torture, and to prevent efforts by the Plaintiff to seek and find remedy and

11

relief.” See Complaint, ECF No. 1, at 14. No further specific information about Mr. Cao or his

12

alleged offenses is provided.

13

Furthermore, in the Motion, Plaintiff does not refer to any evidence concerning Mr. Cao’s

14

activities or purported wrongdoing. Rather than provide factual support for his position regarding

15

Mr. Cao, Plaintiff simply states that “[b]y virtue of default, [Mr. Cao] may not challenge the factual

16

allegations supporting the claim.” Id. Plaintiff also does not provide any legal authority

17

supporting Plaintiff’s assertions that Mr. Cao is liable for violating Plaintiff’s human rights.

18

Given the sparsity of the allegations and the evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims

19

do not have legal merit, that the complaint is not sufficient to establish entitlement to relief, and

20

that there is likely to be a dispute about the factual underpinnings of the claims. For these reasons,

21

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: December 3, 2012

_____________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 5:08-CV-01354-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT