Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California v…
Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California v. BCP-3D, Inc.
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:19-cv-00273-RS
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Operating Engineers v. BCP-3D, Judge Westmore set procedures for a default-judgment motion without deciding it.
The plaintiffs were required to follow the briefing and proposed-order instructions, email the proposed findings if necessary, and serve the notice on the other parties. The defendants and other parties were entitled to receive the notice.
What happened
Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California and other plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default judgment against BCP-3D, Inc. and other defendants, meaning a judgment after a defendant fails to respond. The order did not decide whether that judgment should be entered.
The court directed the plaintiffs to follow the district’s briefing rules. If no opposition was filed by the deadline, the plaintiffs were instead required to file a proposed order by the reply deadline, with supporting facts, legal authority, and analysis. They also had to email the proposed findings in a Microsoft Word file and serve the notice on the other parties.
Judge Westmore issued the order on March 10, 2020. The order provided instructions for considering the motion, including jurisdiction, service, and the factors used for default judgments, but it did not grant or deny the motion.
The detailed version
- Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California v… · No. 3:19-cv-00273-RS
- Kandis Westmore
- Mar. 10, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment on March 10, 2020. The opinion identifies the defendants as BCP-3D, Inc. and other defendants, but it does not provide additional facts about the underlying claims.
Order
The court instructed that all briefing must comply with Civil Local Rule 7, including the deadlines for any opposition and reply. 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 follow the structure in Attachment A and include the legal authority and analysis needed to establish the case. It also had to address subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, service of process, and the factors used to decide whether to enter a default judgment. Those factors include possible prejudice to the plaintiffs, the merits and sufficiency of the claims, the amount of money requested, the possibility of a dispute over important facts, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the preference for deciding cases on their merits.
The plaintiffs were also ordered to email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court and to serve the notice on all other parties. The court stated that no chambers copies of the proposed order were required.
Disposition
The opinion is an order providing procedures and required contents for the pending motion. It does not state that the motion was granted or denied, does not enter a default judgment, and does not award damages, attorney’s fees, or costs. Judge Kandis A. Westmore signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.