Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Breneman, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-00131
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Pension Plan v. Breneman, Inc., Judge Westmore set briefing and proposed-order requirements for a default-judgment motion but did not decide whether to grant it.
The plaintiffs, who were required to follow the briefing and proposed-order instructions, and the other parties, whom the plaintiffs were required to notify. The order did not determine the parties’ ultimate rights.
What happened
Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Breneman, Inc. concerns the plaintiffs’ motion for a judgment because the defendants allegedly failed to defend the case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or decide whether the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.
The court required briefing under the court’s local rules. If no opposition was filed by the deadline, the plaintiffs were instead required to submit a proposed order addressing jurisdiction, service, the legal standards for default judgment, the relevant factors, and any requested damages, attorney’s fees, or costs. The plaintiffs also had to serve the notice on the other parties.
Judge Kandis A. Westmore did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment in this order. The order only established what the plaintiffs had to submit and when, and it stated that the proposed filing would be considered later.
The detailed version
- Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Breneman, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-00131
- William Alsup
- Oct. 6, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment on October 5, 2020. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims, state that default judgment had already been entered, or provide factual details about the dispute.
Order and Required Submission
The court directed 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. The plaintiffs also had to email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court and serve the notice on all other parties.
The court specified that the proposed submission should address subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and service of process. It also required analysis of the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, including possible prejudice to the plaintiffs, the merits and sufficiency of the claims, the amount at stake, possible factual disputes, excusable neglect, and the federal rules’ preference for decisions on the merits.
Any requested relief had to be supported separately. The proposed findings were required to include legal authority and evidence for damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. For attorney’s fees, the court listed required support concerning hours worked, billing rates, prevailing community rates, and the reasonableness of the hours requested.
Disposition
The court did not rule on the motion for default judgment. It issued instructions concerning briefing and, if appropriate, a proposed order. The order states only, “IT IS SO ORDERED.” Judge Kandis A. Westmore signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.