Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 25, 2021

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Dailey

Judge
Jeffrey White
Docket
4:20-cv-03625
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

G & G Closed Circuit Events v. Dailey: Judge Westmore set procedures for a pending default-judgment motion but did not decide it.

Who this affects

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC and the other parties in the action, including James Allen Dailey and the other named defendants.

What happened

In G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Dailey, the plaintiff filed a motion asking for judgment because the defendants had not defended the case. The court referred the motion for a report and recommendation.

The order set briefing deadlines under the court’s local rules. If no opposition was filed, the plaintiff had to submit a proposed order addressing jurisdiction, service, the legal standards, the claim’s merits, damages, fees, costs, and other required issues. The plaintiff also had to serve the notice on the other parties.

The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment. Judge Westmore signed the order on February 25, 2021.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Dailey · No. 4:20-cv-03625
Judge
Jeffrey White
Date
Feb. 25, 2021

Nature of the Order

This is an order concerning the plaintiff’s pending motion for default judgment. It does not decide whether default judgment should be entered.

Background and Procedure

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC filed a motion for default judgment on February 23, 2021. The motion was referred to the undersigned judge for a report and recommendation. The order required all briefing to comply with Civil Local Rule 7, including its opposition and reply deadlines.

If no opposition was filed by the applicable deadline, the plaintiff was ordered to file a proposed order by the reply deadline instead. The proposed submission had to follow the structure in Attachment A and include the legal authority and analysis needed to support the requested judgment. The plaintiff also had to email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the specified court email address. No chambers copies were required, and the plaintiff was ordered to serve the notice on all other parties.

Required Content of a Proposed Default Judgment

Attachment A directed the plaintiff to address:

- the factual and procedural background, relying on the complaint and record; - the legal standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2); - subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and service of process; - the relevant factors governing whether default judgment should be entered, including possible prejudice, the merits and sufficiency of the claims, the amount at stake, possible factual disputes, excusable neglect, and the preference for decisions on the merits; and - any requested damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, with supporting legal authority and evidence.

The attachment also stated that factual allegations in the complaint are generally accepted as true after default, except allegations about damages, and that relief may not differ in kind from or exceed the amount demanded in the pleadings.

Disposition

The court entered an order directing briefing and, if appropriate, submission of a proposed order. It did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment and did not enter a default judgment or specify an award.

Judge

The order is signed by Andis A. Westmore, United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.