Olvera v. Shafer et al

Filing 207

ORDER Denying 205 Motion for Default Judgment. Any further motion for default judgment must be filed by 10/17/17. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/10/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 GUADALUPE OLVERA FAMILY TRUST, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 vs. 13 JARED E. SHAFER, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:14-cv-01298-GMN-NJK ORDER (Docket Nos. 205, 206) 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendant Patience 17 Bristol for $162,221.25 in compensatory damages and another $300,000 in punitive damages. Docket 18 No. 205; see also Docket No. 206 (affidavit). “A defendant’s default does not automatically entitle the 19 plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment.” PepsiCo., Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 20 (C.D. Cal. 2002). In order to obtain default judgment, the movant must make a threshold showing that 21 service was properly effectuated and that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defaulting 22 defendant. Tuli v. Republic of Iraq, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999); see also DFSB Kollective Co. 23 v. Bourne, 897 F. Supp. 2d 871, 877 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Even if that showing has been made, whether 24 a default judgment should be entered is an issue entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See 25 Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The Ninth Circuit has determined that district 26 courts should look at seven discretionary factors before rendering a decision on default judgment. See 27 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). 28 1 The movant seeking default judgment also has the burden of proving its damages. See, e.g., 2 Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2001). Generally 3 speaking, damages are proven through the submission of evidence or the holding of an evidentiary 4 hearing. See Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal. 2003). 5 Punitive damages are not awarded as of right, but rather require a showing that the defendant’s conduct 6 meets the legal requirements for triggering punitive damages. See Dolphin v. Ruiz, 2008 WL 4552940, 7 *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2008) (addressing punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Generally speaking, 8 punitive damages cannot be awarded simply on the basis of pleadings and instead can only be awarded 9 based on an evidentiary showing. See, e.g., Hauge v. Adriatic Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5587365, *2 (E.D. Cal. 10 Oct. 10, 2013). 11 Plaintiff’s 18-line motion for default judgment fails to address the sufficiency of service, fails 12 to show that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Bristol, fails to address the Eitel factors, 13 fails to provide meaningful discussion as to compensatory damages, and fails to identify any basis for 14 an award of punitive damages. See Docket No. 205. Accordingly, the motion for default judgment is 15 DENIED without prejudice. Any further motion for default judgment must be filed by October 17, 16 2017. Counsel shall carefully review the required showings for entry of default judgment and must 17 address all relevant issues in any renewed motion.1 Any renewed motion must provide meaningful 18 discussion of each relevant issue, see, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 19 (D. Nev. Oct. 29, 2013), and may not incorporate by reference filings made elsewhere in the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: October 10, 2017 22 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court does not herein purport to list all defects with the current motion. Counsel must ensure that any renewed motion not only comports with the requirements outlined herein but also that it comports with any other applicable requirements. 2

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?