United States v. Rowles
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:19-cv-06601
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In United States v. Rowles, Judge Westmore directed briefing on the United States’ motion for default judgment but did not decide it.
The United States and the defendants, including Samuel Peter Rowles, were affected by the briefing, proposed-order, and service requirements.
What happened
In United States of America v. Samuel Peter Rowles, et al., the United States filed a motion for default judgment on November 23, 2020. The order does not describe the underlying claims or decide whether judgment should be entered.
The court set briefing requirements under the court’s local rules. If no opposition was filed by the deadline, the United States was ordered to submit a proposed order by December 14, 2020, addressing jurisdiction, service, the legal standards, the relevant factors, and any requested damages, fees, or costs.
Judge Kandis Westmore ordered the United States to serve the notice on the other parties. The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment.
The detailed version
- United States v. Rowles · No. 4:19-cv-06601
- Kandis Westmore
- Nov. 24, 2020
Background
The United States filed a motion for default judgment on November 23, 2020. The opinion does not state the underlying claims, the alleged facts, or the relief requested in the motion.
Order
The court directed that all briefing comply with Civil Local Rule 7, including its opposition and reply deadlines. If no opposition was filed by the applicable deadline, the United States was ordered to file a proposed order by the reply deadline, December 14, 2020.
The proposed order had to follow the structure in Attachment A and include the legal authority and analysis needed to support the case. The attachment required discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, service of process, the factors governing default judgment, and any requested damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. It also required evidence and legal authority supporting requested monetary relief. The United States was directed to email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court and to serve the notice on all other parties.
Disposition
The court did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment. It issued procedural directions concerning briefing and, if necessary, preparation of a proposed order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.