Doe v. Steele
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff's renewed motion for default judgment against Defendant 24-7 Internet, Inc., finding that the plaintiff likely satisfied the relevant factors but raising concerns regarding service and jurisdiction. The court ordered a hearing to be held on September 19, 2023, to address these procedural issues and to allow the plaintiff to prove up the amount of damages.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for default judgment held for hearing“Accordingly, the Court SETS this matter for hearing on September 19, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3C.” | agree with court The court identified specific procedural deficiencies, including improper service of the summons and a discrepancy in the defendant's legal name, which are fundamental prerequisites for entering a default judgment. Setting a hearing to resolve these issues before granting the motion is a procedurally sound exercise of discretion. |
Requirement to prove up damages“Plaintiff must “prove up” all sought monetary damages and come prepared to submit admissible evidence substantiating her claim to $600,000 in damages.” | agree with court Because the damages claimed are not a liquidated sum, the court correctly requires the plaintiff to provide admissible evidence to substantiate the specific amount of $600,000 at the hearing, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Eitel factors and the Davis requirement for proving up damages. It appropriately identifies the procedural defects in service and the defendant's name that must be resolved before a default judgment can be entered. The decision to set a hearing rather than granting the motion immediately is a defensible and procedurally correct response to the identified issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE, Case No. 20-cv-1818-MMA-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING HEARING ON 13 v. RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFUALT JUDGMENT 14 CISSY STEELE, et al., 15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 129] 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jane Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for default 19 judgment against Defendant 24-7 Internet, Inc. (“Defendant”). See Doc. No. 129. This is 20 Plaintiff’s second attempt at obtaining default judgment against Defendant. See Doc. 21 Nos. 121, 129. 22 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), the Court may enter default 23 judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend an action. See 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). The Ninth Circuit has provided seven factors for consideration by 25 the district court in exercising its discretion to enter default judgment: 26 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s 27 substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money 28 at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; 1 (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. 3 4 || Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 6 Moore’s Federal 5 || Practice § 55-05[2], at 55-24 to 55-26). Having reviewed Plaintiff's renewed motion, the 6 || Court is inclined to find that Plaintiff has satisfied the Kite/ factors. However, the Court 7 concerns regarding the propriety of entering default judgment against Defendant at 8 time. Accordingly, the Court SETS this matter for hearing on September 19, 2023 9 || at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3C. Plaintiff should come prepared to offer evidence and 10 || argument regarding proper service upon Defendant,’ the Court’s personal jurisdiction 11 Defendant, and whether default was properly entered against Defendant.’ 12 || Additionally, because the amount claimed 1s neither a liquidated sum nor capable of 13 mathematical calculation, see Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981), 14 || Plaintiff must “prove up” all sought monetary damages and come prepared to submit 15 admissible evidence substantiating her claim to $600,000 in damages. See, e.g., Blizzard 16 || Entm’t, Inc. v. Reeves, No. CV 09-7621 SVW (AJWx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85560, 17 2010 WL 4054095, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2010). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: September 8, 2023 20 pWihick Ta -f ipltr 21 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 22 United States District Judge 23 24 95 Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with the summons issued by the Clerk of Court as to the First Amended Complaint, see Doc. No. 15, but rather Plaintiff served Defendant with the summons that was 26 || initially issued as to the original complaint, see Doc. No. 2, which did not name Defendant as a party to this action. Additionally, it appears Defendant’s registered agent was not served. 27 Plaintiff initially identified Defendant as “24-7 Internet, Inc.” See Doc. No. 12. However, it appears 28 that this entity’s correct name is “24-7 Internet, LLC.” See Doc. No. 62. Nonetheless, Plaintiff requested, and the Clerk of Court entered, default against “24-7 Internet, Inc.” See Doc. Nos. 63, 64. sy