GS Holistic, LLC v. Sharifi Global Trade Inc
- 3:22-cv-07640
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In GS Holistic, LLC v. Sharifi Global Trade Inc., the court set procedures and a deadline for a possible default judgment; no judge is identified.
GS Holistic, LLC, Sharifi Global Trade Inc. doing business as Cigarettes Cheaper, and Asaduallah Sharifi were affected by the filing procedures and service requirement; the opinion did not decide the request for default judgment.
What happened
In GS Holistic, LLC v. Sharifi Global Trade Inc., the clerk had entered default against Sharifi Global Trade Inc., doing business as Cigarettes Cheaper, and Asaduallah Sharifi. The court notified the parties that any motion for default judgment had to be filed by May 31, 2023.
The notice required any motion to follow federal and local court rules and to address jurisdiction, service, the factors used to evaluate default judgment, and any requested damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. If no opposition was filed, the moving party instead had to submit proposed factual findings and legal conclusions.
The court ordered the plaintiff to serve the notice and file proof of service. It did not grant or deny default judgment, and the judge’s name is not clear in the opinion text.
The detailed version
- GS Holistic, LLC v. Sharifi Global Trade Inc · No. 3:22-cv-07640
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
The Clerk of Court had entered default against Sharifi Global Trade Inc., doing business as Cigarettes Cheaper, and Asaduallah Sharifi. The court issued a notice explaining the procedure for any request for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2).
Required Filing
The notice required all motions for default judgment to be filed by May 31, 2023. Requests for more time had to comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3. Any motion also had to comply with Civil Local Rule 7, follow the structure in Attachment A, and include the legal authority and analysis needed to support the case.
If no opposition was filed by the applicable deadline, the moving party had to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the reply deadline. The party also had to email those proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court’s specified email address. No chambers copies were required.
Guidance in Attachment A
Attachment A directed a default-judgment motion to address the requested relief, factual and procedural background, and the legal standard. It stated that default judgment is discretionary; that well-pleaded factual allegations other than damages are generally treated as admitted; that legal conclusions and insufficiently pleaded facts are not established by default; and that any judgment cannot award relief different in kind from, or greater in amount than, the relief requested in the pleadings.
The attachment also directed the plaintiff to address the factors identified in Eitel v. McCool, including prejudice, the merits of the claims, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount at stake, possible factual disputes, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits. It further required discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, service of process, and the legal and evidentiary support for damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Disposition
The court ordered the plaintiff to serve the notice on the other parties and file proof of service. The notice did not decide a motion for default judgment and did not enter a default judgment. The judge’s name is not clearly readable in the supplied opinion text.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.