DirecTV, LLC v. Mackey et al

Filing 27

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED WITH RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE GRANTED by Judge Paul S. Grewal 21 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

DIRECTV, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
AIDAN MACKEY et al,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:13-cv-01619-PSG
ORDER THAT CASE BE
REASSIGNED WITH
RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT BE GRANTED
(Re: Docket No. 21)

Before the court is Plaintiff DirecTV LLC’s (“DirecTV”) Motion for Default Judgment as

17
18

to all remaining defendants. 1 No opposition was filed, 2 but one of the defendants, Gerard Francis

19

Kehoe (“Kehoe”), did, however, appear at the hearing on the motion. Only DirecTV has consented

20

to have this case adjudicated by a magistrate judge. The court hereby orders the case be reassigned

21

to a district court judge and recommends Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment be GRANTED. 3

22
23
24
25

1

Defendant Aidan Mackey was dismissed from this case without prejudice on June 5, 2013. See
Docket No. 9. Defendants Gerard Francis Kehoe, Elizabeth Josephine Kehoe, and Katie Bloom’s
Inc. remain.

26

2

27

3

28

Defendants have not filed any pleading(s) in this case.

This court is ordering reassignment to a district judge because, absent consent of all parties a
magistrate judge does not have the authority to make case-dispositive rulings. See, e.g., Tripati v.
Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1988).
1

Case No.: 5:13-cv-01619-PSG
ORDER

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

1
2

After entry of default, district courts are authorized to grant default judgment, so long as the

3

judgment does not “differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” 4

4

Entry of default judgment is within the court’s discretion, 5 and is governed by the following

5
6

factors: “(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

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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.” 6

11

“In considering the sufficiency of the complaint and the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive

12

claims, facts alleged in the complaint not relating to damages are deemed to be true upon default.” 7

13
14

Although “factual allegations relating to liability are taken as true upon entry of default, allegations
as to amount of damages are not automatically accepted.” 8 As to damages, when the damages

15
16
17

claimed are not readily ascertainable from the pleadings and the record, the court may (but is not
required to) conduct a hearing to determine the amount of damages. 9

18
19
20

4

21

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.

22

See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (decision of district court whether to
enter default judgment is discretionary and, given lack of merit in substantive claims, there was no
abuse of discretion in declining to enter default judgment in favor of plaintiff).

23

6

24

7

25
26
27
28

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

Bd. of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers v. Moak, Case No. 4:11-cv-04620-CW,
2012 WL 5379565, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2012) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Group,
559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir.1977); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)).
8

Truong Giang Corp. v. Twinstar Tea Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-03594-JSW, 2007 WL 1545173,
at *13 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2007) (citing TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18
(9th Cir. 1987)).
9

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
2

Case No.: 5:13-cv-01619-PSG
ORDER