Supplemental Income 401 Plan v. Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, Inc.
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:19-cv-04401
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Supplemental Income 401(k) Plan v. Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, Inc., Judge Westmore ordered briefing and service steps for the pending default-judgment motion.
Supplemental Income 401(k) Plan had to follow the court’s filing and service instructions. Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, Inc. and the other parties were to receive notice and the motion papers. The order did not determine anyone’s ultimate liability or entitlement to relief.
What happened
In Supplemental Income 401(k) Plan v. Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, Inc., the plaintiff had filed a motion asking for a judgment because the defendant had not defended the case. The court did not decide that motion in this order.
The court ordered the parties to follow the district's briefing rules. If the defendant did not oppose the motion by the deadline, the plaintiff was required to file a proposed order and supporting findings instead by the reply deadline, and to email them to the court. The plaintiff also had to serve the notice and motion papers on the other parties and file proof of service.
Judge Kandis Westmore's order set these procedures but did not grant or deny default judgment.
The detailed version
- Supplemental Income 401 Plan v. Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-04401
- Kandis Westmore
- Sept. 18, 2020
Background
Supplemental Income 401(k) Plan filed a motion for default judgment on September 18, 2020. The opinion is an order about how that motion must proceed; it does not state that the court granted or denied the motion.
Court’s Instructions
The court required all briefing to comply with Civil Local Rule 7, including the deadlines for an opposition and reply. If no opposition was filed by the applicable deadline, the plaintiff was required to file a proposed order by the reply deadline instead. The proposed submission had to follow Attachment A and include the legal authority and analysis needed to establish the case. The plaintiff also had to email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court and did not need to submit chambers copies.
The court required the plaintiff to serve the notice and all moving papers concerning the default-judgment motion—Docket Nos. 34 through 37—on all other parties. The plaintiff also had to file a certificate of service on the docket.
Legal Standards Listed in Attachment A
Attachment A instructed the plaintiff that a court may enter final judgment after a defendant’s default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), but that entering default judgment is discretionary. Before considering the request, the court must address subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and service of process. It must then consider the seven factors identified in Eitel v. McCool, including potential prejudice, the merits and sufficiency of the claim, the amount at stake, possible factual disputes, excusable neglect, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits. The attachment also stated that factual allegations are generally accepted as true after default, except allegations about damages, and that relief cannot exceed or differ from what the pleadings demand.
Disposition
Judge Kandis A. Westmore ordered the plaintiff to follow these briefing, proposed-order, and service procedures. The order did not enter default judgment and did not resolve the underlying claims or requested relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.