Brooke v. Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-05931
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Brooke v. Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC, Judge Westmore required Theresa Brooke to submit materials and set a hearing; the court did not decide default judgment.
Theresa Brooke, who sought default judgment and was required to submit a proposed order and serve the motion; and Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC, which was the defendant and the subject of the motion.
What happened
In Brooke v. Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC, Theresa Brooke asked the court to enter a default judgment against Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC. The order says no opposition was filed by the deadline, but it did not decide whether default judgment should be entered.
The court directed Brooke to file a proposed order within 14 days, with legal authority and analysis addressing jurisdiction, service, the relevant factors for default judgment, and any requested damages, fees, or costs. Brooke also had to serve the notice and motion on the other parties and file proof of service.
The court set a December 16, 2021 hearing by Zoom on the motion. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued the order; the text identifies Haywood Gilliam as the presiding judge who referred the motion for a report and recommendation.
The detailed version
- Brooke v. Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC · No. 4:21-cv-05931
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 5, 2021
Background
Theresa Brooke filed a motion for default judgment on October 11, 2021. On November 4, 2021, the presiding judge referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore for a report and recommendation. The order states that no opposition was filed by the deadline under the court's local rules.
What the Court Ordered
The court did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment. Instead, it ordered Brooke to file a proposed order within 14 days. The proposed order had to include the factual and procedural background, the legal basis for the court's jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over the parties, adequate service of process, and analysis of the factors used to decide whether default judgment is appropriate.
The required analysis included the possible prejudice to Brooke, the strength of her claims, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount of money at stake, the possibility of a dispute over important facts, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the federal preference for decisions on the merits. The court also required supporting authority and evidence for any requested damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Brooke had to email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court and did not need to submit paper copies to chambers.
Hearing and Service
The court set a Zoom hearing on the motion for default judgment for December 16, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. Brooke was ordered to serve the notice and the motion on all other parties and file a certificate of service.
Disposition
The order set a hearing and required additional submissions; it did not enter a default judgment or resolve the underlying claims. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued the order. The opinion identifies Haywood Gilliam as the presiding judge who referred the motion to her.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.