Mission Produce, Inc. v. Organic Alliance, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Lucy Koh denying 27 Motion for Default Judgment (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
10

MISSION PRODUCE, INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
ORGANIC ALLIANCE, INC., et al.,

Case No. 5:15-CV-01951-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 27

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Before the Court is Plaintiff Mission Produce, Inc.’s motion for default judgment against
Defendants Organic Alliance, Inc. and Parker Booth (“Booth”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and therefore
VACATES the hearing set for December 3, 2015. The case management conference set for
December 3, 2015 will proceed as scheduled. Because Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants

21

were properly served with Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT

22

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.

23
24
25
26
27
28

I. DEFECTS IN SERVICE OF PROCESS
Before the Court can issue a default judgment, “a district court has an affirmative duty to
look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties.” In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707,
712 (9th Cir. 1999). For the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the
defendant must have been served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See
1
Case No.5:15-CV-01951-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1
2

Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff has not shown that it served Organic Alliance and Booth in accordance with Rule

3

4. On June 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed proofs of service signed under penalty of perjury indicating that

4

a single process server personally served the summons and complaint, among other documents, on

5

Defendants Organic Alliance and Parker Booth. ECF Nos. 16-17. The proof of service for

6

Organic Alliance asserted that the pleadings were personally served on Parker Booth, President of

7

Organic Alliance, on May 18, 2015 at 12:31 p.m. in Salinas, California. ECF No. 17. The

8

separate proof of service for Booth, however, indicated that Booth was served on May 18, 2015 at

9

12:31 p.m. in Shelton, Washington. ECF No. 16. The Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction
over Organic Alliance or Booth, let alone issue a default judgment, unless and until this

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

discrepancy is resolved. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

12

II. ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN PLAINTIFF’S BRIEFING

13
14
15
16

If Plaintiff file a new motion for default judgment—with appropriate supporting
declarations—Plaintiff shall address the following deficiencies in Plaintiff’s motion.
A. Personal Jurisdiction
As noted above, it is Plaintiff’s burden to show that the Court can exercise both subject

17

matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Plaintiff’s motion for default

18

judgment does not even mention jurisdiction. Any new motion for default judgment should

19

explain why this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over each Defendant.

20
21

B. Documentation in Support of Principal Amount Owed
One of Plaintiff’s claims is for enforcement of a reparation award issued by the U.S.

22

Department of Agriculture. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 19-29. Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he sales transactions

23

that are the subject of Plaintiff’s administrative complaint are the same sales transactions that are

24

the subject of” Plaintiff’s complaint in this Court. Id. ¶ 20. The problem with Plaintiff’s argument

25

is that the set of invoices that Plaintiff allegedly submitted in support of Plaintiff’s administrative

26

complaint is not the same set of invoices Plaintiff has submitted in support of its motion for

27

default judgment. Compare ECF No. 30-1 at 3 (invoice dated March 14, 2013) with ECF No. 1-1

28

2
Case No.5:15-CV-01951-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1

at 5-8 (showing no invoices dated after February 17, 2013). Plaintiff has not explained why the

2

supporting evidence and the $73,306.00 figure awarded in the administrative proceeding1 differ

3

from the supporting evidence and $73,058.50 figure2 sought in this proceeding.

4

C. Interest

5

Plaintiff’s complaint notes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture awarded Plaintiff

6

interest on the amount allegedly owed at the rate of 0.13% per year based on the one-year constant

7

maturity treasury yield. See ECF No. 1-2 at 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, however,

8

seeks interest at the rate of 18% per year based on language in the invoices that allegedly reflect

9

Plaintiff’s transactions with Defendants. ECF No. 28 at 8. Plaintiff has not explained why
Plaintiff is entitled to a greater rate of interest than the rate awarded by the Department of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Agriculture.
D. Attorney’s Fees

12

While the declaration of June Monroe and its exhibits, ECF No. 29, provide some support

13
14

for Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, any new motion for attorney’s fees shall set forth each

15

attorney’s hourly rate and justifications for each attorney’s hourly rate so that the Court can

16

determine that each attorney’s rate is “in line with the prevailing market rate of the relevant

17

community.” Carson v. Billings Police Dep’t, 470 F.3d 889, 891 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation

18

omitted).

19

III. ORDER

20

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is DENIED

21

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Regardless of whether Plaintiff files a new motion for default

22

judgment, Plaintiff shall submit an amended declaration describing how, if at all, Defendants

23

Organic Alliance and Parker Booth were served, within 7 days of the date of this order.

24
25
26
27
28

1
2

See ECF No. 1 ¶ 22; ECF No. 1-1.
ECF No. 28 (Motion for Default Judgment) at 7.
3

Case No.5:15-CV-01951-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: November 25, 2015

3
4

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

5
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

4
Case No.5:15-CV-01951-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE