Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2023

AT&T Corporation v. Interstate Holdings

Full caption

AT&T Corporation, a New York corporation v. Interstate Holdings, LLC dba Concord Hilton, a California limited liability company

Judge
J.C. Ros
Docket
3:23-cv-00938
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In AT&T Corporation v. Interstate Holdings, Judge J.C. Ros set procedures for a possible default-judgment motion after the clerk entered default.

Who this affects

AT&T Corporation must follow the stated filing and service procedures if it seeks default judgment; Interstate Holdings, LLC dba Concord Hilton is the defendant against whom the Clerk entered default. The order does not decide the underlying claims or award damages, fees, or costs.

What happened

In AT&T Corporation v. Interstate Holdings, LLC dba Concord Hilton, the clerk had entered default against Interstate Holdings. The court issued a notice explaining how AT&T must proceed if it seeks a default judgment.

The notice requires any motion for default judgment to be filed within 45 days after the clerk entered default, unless additional time is requested under the court’s local rules. It also requires the motion to address jurisdiction, service, the relevant default-judgment factors, and any requested damages, attorney’s fees, or costs.

Judge J.C. Ros ordered AT&T to serve the notice on the other parties and file proof of service. The opinion does not enter a default judgment or decide the amount of any damages, fees, or costs.

The detailed version

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

Case
AT&T Corporation v. Interstate Holdings · No. 3:23-cv-00938
Judge
J.C. Ros
Date
June 2, 2023

Background

The Clerk of Court had entered default against Interstate Holdings, LLC dba Concord Hilton. The court issued a notice concerning any motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

Procedures Required for a Default-Judgment Motion

The court required any motion for default judgment to be filed no later than 45 days after the Clerk’s entry of default. Requests for more time must comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3. The motion must also comply with Civil Local Rule 7 and follow the structure in Attachment A.

If no opposition is filed by the deadline under Rule 7, the moving party must instead file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the reply deadline. The moving party must also email those proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court’s listed email address. The court stated that no chambers copies were required.

Required Legal and Evidentiary Showing

Attachment A instructs the moving party to address subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and service of process. For an out-of-state defendant, the filing must include a minimum-contacts analysis under the cited Ninth Circuit authority. The filing must also establish that service complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

The proposed filing must separately analyze each factor identified in Eitel v. McCool, including the possible prejudice to the plaintiff, the merits of the claims, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount at stake, possible disputes concerning material facts, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the federal rules’ preference for decisions on the merits.

The court further required legal authority and supporting evidence for requested damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Damages allegations in the complaint are not automatically accepted as true. Any attorney-fee request must include support for the hours worked and billing rates, evidence concerning prevailing community rates, and evidence that the hours were reasonable.

Disposition

The court did not grant or deny a default-judgment motion and did not enter a default judgment. It ordered AT&T to serve the notice on all other parties and file proof of service. The order was signed by J.C. Ros, identified in the opinion as a United States Magistrate Judge. The judge’s name is not fully clear in the supplied text.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.