Tom Ver LLC v. Organic Alliance, Inc et al

Filing 135

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 134 Motion for Default Judgment (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

TOM VER LLC,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.13-cv-03506-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITH PREJUDICE
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 134
ORGANIC ALLIANCE, INC, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiff Tom Ver LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for default judgment

19

against Defendant Organic Alliance, Inc. (“Organic Alliance”), and Defendant Christopher White

20

(“White”), (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No. 134. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the

21

Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES

22

the hearing set for June 25, 2015. Having considering the submissions of the parties, the relevant

23

law, and the record in this case, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

24

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment, ECF Nos. 86, 87, for

25

failure “to provide any argument or pertinent legal authority in support of its motions” in violation

26

of Civil Local Rules 7-2(b) and 7-4(a). ECF No. 98. At the May 21, 2015, case management

27

conference, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to file a motion for default judgment that

28

1
Case No.13-cv-03506-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITH PREJUDICE MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

provided the legal basis for granting a default judgment and cited the relevant authority would

2

result in a denial with prejudice.

3

Despite the Court’s admonishments, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for default judgment, ECF

4

No. 134, fails to cite any pertinent legal authority or provide any legal analysis for why an entry of

5

default judgment against Defendants Organic Alliance and Christopher White is appropriate in the

6

instant case. Plaintiff does not address the standards for default judgment, or make any arguments

7

regarding why default judgment in the instant case would satisfy the factors laid out in Eitel v.

8

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). Instead, Plaintiff’s 10 page motion focuses

9

solely on the availability of attorney’s fees under Plaintiff’s contractual agreement with

10

Defendants and the appropriateness of Plaintiff’s fees request. See ECF No. 134.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court therefore DENIES with prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.

12

Whether to grant a default judgment is at the discretion of the district court. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616

13

F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order that Plaintiff

14

cite the relevant law and provide pertinent analysis as to why default judgment is appropriate

15

under the Eitel factors. Based on Plaintiff’s deficient submission, the Court is unable to weigh “(1)

16

the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the

17

sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a

18

dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the

19

strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.”

20

Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. Accordingly, the Court concludes that default judgment is not

21

warranted in the instant case.

22

As Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees turns on the entry of default judgment, the Court

23

also DENIES Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: June 17, 2015

26
27
28

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
2
Case No.13-cv-03506-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITH PREJUDICE MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT