Pathak v. Yahoo, Inc et al

Filing 22

ORDER Denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/2/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
ANSHU PATHAK,
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
SPECIALTY MEATS AND GOURMET LLC,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02124-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 21)

17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment against

18

Defendant Specialty Meats and Gourmet LLC. Docket No. 21. On January 9, 2017, a Clerk’s entry

19

of default was entered as to Defendant. Docket No. 20. Once default has been entered, a plaintiff

20

may apply to the Court for entry of default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

21

55(b)(2). Whether to enter default judgment is at the sole discretion of the district court. See Aldabe

22

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).

23

As a preliminary matter, default judgment is void if a court lacks personal jurisdiction over

24

the defendant. Pac. Atl. Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985).

25

The Court has a duty to examine its jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties when default

26

judgment is sought for failure to plead or otherwise defend. Tuli v. Republic of Iraq, 172 F.3d 707,

27

712 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may therefore raise the issue of personal jurisdiction sua sponte. Id.

28

1

The Court is not persuaded, based on the facts before it, that it has personal jurisdiction over

2

Defendant. See Docket No. 1. See also J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 881

3

(2011) (consent to personal jurisdiction requires circumstances or conduct evincing “an intention to

4

benefit from and thus an intention to submit to the laws of the forum State”); Evanston Ins. Co. v.

5

W. Cmty. Ins. Co., 13 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1068-69 (D. Nev. 2014) (discussing personal jurisdiction

6

standards at length). Plaintiff must first demonstrate that the Court has personal jurisdiction over

7

Defendant, in order for the Court to grant a motion for default judgment. See Tuli, 172 F.3d at 712-

8

13.

9

Even if Plaintiff is able to demonstrate that the Court has personal jurisdiction over

10

Defendant, however, a defendant’s default alone does not entitle a plaintiff to a court-ordered

11

judgment. See Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1092. Rather, a court should look at seven discretionary factors

12

before rendering a decision on default judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th

13

Cir. 1986). These factors are: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of

14

plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in

15

the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due

16

to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

17

favoring decisions on the merits. Id. In applying these Eitel factors, “the factual allegations of the

18

complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United

19

Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-

20

18 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s pending motion fails to address the Eitel factors, much less

21

demonstrate that they have been met. See Docket No. 21.

22

A plaintiff seeking default judgment also has the burden of providing sufficient proof of his

23

damages. See NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, 840 F.3d 606, 617 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that district

24

court’s calculation of damages was proper where it relied upon extensive evidence provided by the

25

plaintiff); Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560; Holiday Sys. Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Schwarz & Assocs., No.

26

2:10-cv-00471-MMD-GWF, 2014 WL 204340, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 17, 2014 (finding damages

27
28

2

1

requested appropriate based on evidence presented); AT&T Corp. v. Innocom Telecom LLC, No. C-

2

06-05400 EDL, 2007 WL 163193, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2007) (“Rule 55(b)(2) allows, but does

3

not require, the court to conduct a hearing on damages, as long as it ensures that there is an

4

evidentiary basis for the damages awarded in the default judgment”). Plaintiff’s pending motion

5

seeks over 2 million dollars in damages, but provides no more than conclusory assertions to support

6

an award in that amount. See Docket No. 21. Similarly, Plaintiff fails to identify the nature of the

7

damages sought or the precise injury that Plaintiff asserts was incurred as a result of Defendant’s

8

alleged conduct. See id.

9

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment against Defendant Specialty

10

Meats and Gourmet LLC, Docket No. 21, is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed

11

motion for entry of default judgment shall address whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over

12

Defendant, address the Eitel factors, include appropriate evidentiary support for the damages sought,

13

and clearly identify the nature of the damages sought and the injury incurred.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: February 2, 2017
___________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3