Kansupda v. Baptista Delivery Services, LLC

Background

Amit Kansupda filed a motion for default judgment against Baptista Delivery Services, LLC, and other defendants on February 19, 2020. The court issued an order explaining the required next steps and supplied an attachment describing the contents of any proposed findings and order.

What the Court Required

The court stated that all briefing had to comply with Civil Local Rule 7, including its opposition and reply deadlines. If no opposition was filed by the applicable deadline, Kansupda was required to file a proposed order by the reply deadline. The proposed order also had to be emailed to the court in Microsoft Word format. No chambers copies were required. Kansupda was ordered to serve the notice on all other parties.

Required Analysis

The attachment instructed Kansupda to address whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s authority over the type of dispute—and personal jurisdiction over the parties, as well as whether service of process was adequate.

The proposed findings also had to analyze the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, including possible prejudice to the plaintiff, the merits and sufficiency of the claims, the amount at stake, the possibility of a factual dispute, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the federal policy favoring decisions on the merits.

The court further instructed that any request for damages must be supported by legal authority and evidence. Requests for attorney’s fees had to include evidence of hours worked, billing rates, prevailing community rates, and the reasonableness of the hours. Requests for costs also had to cite supporting evidence and legal authority.

Disposition

Judge DIS A. WESTMORE did not grant or deny Kansupda’s motion for default judgment in this order. Instead, the court set requirements for further briefing or, if no opposition was filed, for a proposed order addressing the requested judgment and relief.