Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern…
Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Garrett Thompson Construction, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-03631
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Board of Trustees v. Garrett Thompson Construction, Magistrate Judge Westmore ordered more materials for plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion without deciding it.
The plaintiffs, who sought default judgment, were required to submit additional briefing or a proposed order and supporting materials. The defendant and other parties were entitled to receive notice of the order.
What happened
In Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Garrett Thompson Construction, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to enter judgment because the defendant had not defended the case. The order did not decide whether judgment should be entered.
The court directed the plaintiffs to follow the required briefing schedule. If no opposition was filed, the plaintiffs were instead required to submit a proposed order addressing jurisdiction, service, the relevant legal standards, the required factors, and any requested damages, fees, or costs. The plaintiffs also had to serve the notice on the other parties and email the proposed findings in an editable document format.
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued the December 18, 2019 order. The order set requirements for further submissions on the motion for default judgment; it did not grant or deny that motion.
The detailed version
- Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern… · No. 4:19-cv-03631
- Jon Tigar
- Dec. 18, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment on December 12, 2019. The order addressed how the motion had to proceed under the court’s local briefing rules and did not resolve the motion itself.
Court’s instructions
The plaintiffs were required to comply with Civil Local Rule 7, including its opposition and reply deadlines. If no opposition was filed by the applicable deadline, the plaintiffs were required to file a proposed order by the reply deadline instead.
The proposed submission had to include the legal authority and analysis needed to support the requested judgment. The court required discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and adequate service of process. It also required analysis of the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, including possible prejudice, the strength of the claims and complaint, the amount at stake, the possibility of a factual dispute, excusable neglect, and the federal preference for decisions on the merits.
The proposed findings also had to support any requested damages with legal authority and evidence. Requests for attorney’s fees had to include evidence of hours worked, billing records or time sheets, support for the requested rates, evidence that the rates matched those prevailing in the community, and support that the hours were reasonable. Any request for costs had to cite supporting evidence and legal authority.
The plaintiffs were ordered to serve the notice on all other parties and email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court. The court stated that no chambers copies were needed.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ordered the plaintiffs to follow these briefing and submission requirements. The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment and did not award damages, attorney’s fees, or costs.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.