Doggie Dental, Inc. v. Shahid
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:19-cv-01705
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Doggie Dental v. Shahid, Judge Westmore set procedures for deciding Doggie Dental’s default-judgment motion and did not yet rule on it.
Doggie Dental, Inc. and Imran Shahid; the order also directed Doggie Dental to serve the notice on all other parties.
What happened
Doggie Dental, Inc. asked the court to enter a judgment because Imran Shahid had defaulted. The December 10, 2020 order did not decide whether default judgment should be entered.
Instead, the court set briefing deadlines under the court’s local rules. If Shahid filed no opposition, Doggie Dental had to submit a proposed order by the reply deadline, addressing jurisdiction, service, the legal claims, the factors governing default judgment, damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and the requested judgment.
Judge Westmore ordered Doggie Dental to serve the notice on the other parties. The order therefore established the materials and procedures for further consideration of the motion; it did not grant or deny the motion.
The detailed version
- Doggie Dental, Inc. v. Shahid · No. 3:19-cv-01705
- Richard Seeborg
- Dec. 10, 2020
Background
Doggie Dental, Inc. filed a motion for default judgment on December 8, 2020. The order concerns how that motion must proceed; it does not contain a final ruling on the request for default judgment.
Order
The court required all briefing to comply with Civil Local Rule 7, including its deadlines for opposition and reply filings. If no opposition was filed by the applicable deadline, Doggie Dental was directed to file a proposed order by the reply deadline and email it in Microsoft Word format to the court. The proposed order had to include the relevant legal authority and analysis needed to establish the case.
The court directed the proposed findings to address subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, service of process, and the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment. Those factors include possible prejudice to the plaintiff, the merits and sufficiency of the claims, the amount of money sought, the possibility of disputed facts, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the federal preference for decisions on the merits. Any requested damages, attorney’s fees, or costs also had to be supported by legal authority and evidence.
Doggie Dental was ordered to serve the notice on all other parties. The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment and did not award damages, attorney’s fees, costs, or any other relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.