Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California v…
Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California v. Steve P. Rados, Inc.
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:19-cv-08079
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Operating Engineers v. Steve P. Rados, Judge Westmore set briefing requirements for plaintiffs’ pending motion for default judgment.
The plaintiffs, who were required to follow the briefing and proposed-order instructions, and Steve P. Rados, Inc., the defendant whose opportunity to oppose the motion was addressed.
What happened
Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California and the other plaintiffs asked the court to enter default judgment against Steve P. Rados, Inc. The order did not decide whether default judgment should be entered.
The court required briefing under the local rules. If the defendant did not oppose the motion by the deadline, the plaintiffs had to file a proposed order by the reply deadline and serve this notice on the other parties.
The proposed order had to address jurisdiction, service, the factors governing default judgment, and any requested damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Judge Westmore issued the order on May 28, 2020.
The detailed version
- Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California v… · No. 4:19-cv-08079
- Kandis Westmore
- May 28, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment on May 27, 2020. The opinion does not provide the underlying claims or explain the factual basis for the requested judgment.
Order Regarding Briefing
The court ordered that all briefing 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 and email it in Microsoft Word format to the court. The plaintiffs also had to serve the notice on all other parties.
Required Proposed Findings
The proposed order had to include legal authority and analysis addressing subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and adequate service of process. It also had to analyze the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, including prejudice to the plaintiffs, the merits and sufficiency of the claims, the amount at stake, possible factual disputes, excusable neglect, and the preference for decisions on the merits.
Any request for damages had to include legal authority establishing entitlement and evidence supporting the amount. Requests for attorney’s fees and costs also had to include supporting records, billing-rate information, evidence that the hours and rates were reasonable, and legal authority supporting the costs.
Disposition
The court issued an order regarding the procedure for resolving the pending motion for default judgment. It did not grant or deny the motion and did not enter a default judgment. Judge Kandis Westmore signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.