Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 5, 2023

GS Holistic, LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:22-cv-07101
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In GS Holistic v. Ashes Plus Nine, Judge Cisneros set briefing and hearing procedures for a pending default-judgment motion without deciding it.

Who this affects

GS Holistic, LLC, Ashes Plus Nine, and Gaizan N. Alreyahsi; the order also set procedures for the other parties in the action.

What happened

GS Holistic, LLC asked the court to enter a default judgment against Ashes Plus Nine and Gaizan N. Alreyahsi. The court issued a notice explaining the schedule for responding to that motion.

Responses or objections were due June 13, 2023, and replies were due June 20, 2023. The court scheduled a hearing for July 18, 2023, and said that, if no response was filed, GS Holistic should submit proposed factual findings and legal conclusions by the reply deadline.

Judge Lisa J. Cisneros did not grant or deny the default-judgment motion. Instead, the notice described the information GS Holistic would need to provide about jurisdiction, service, the factors governing default judgment, damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and the requested judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
GS Holistic, LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine · No. 4:22-cv-07101
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
June 5, 2023

Nature of the Order

The court issued a notice concerning further briefing on GS Holistic, LLC’s motion for default judgment against Ashes Plus Nine and Gaizan N. Alreyahsi. The notice did not decide the motion.

Briefing and Hearing Schedule

Responses or oppositions to the motion were due June 13, 2023. Replies were due June 20, 2023. The court scheduled a hearing for July 18, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. in San Francisco, Courtroom G, before Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros. Requests for additional time had to follow Civil Local Rule 6-3.

If no response or opposition was filed by the deadline, GS Holistic was directed to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the reply deadline and email those proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court. GS Holistic also had to serve the notice on the other parties and file proof of service.

Instructions for Proposed Findings

The court’s Attachment A instructed GS Holistic to address:

- the requested relief and proposed disposition; - the relevant factual and procedural background; - the legal standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), which permits entry of default judgment after a defendant’s default; - subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and service of process for each defendant; - each factor identified in Eitel v. McCool for deciding whether default judgment is appropriate; - the requested damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and any specific judgment amounts.

The attachment stated that, at the default-judgment stage, well-pleaded factual allegations other than those concerning damages are generally treated as admitted, but legal conclusions and unsupported allegations are not. It also stated that a default judgment cannot differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, the relief demanded in the pleadings.

For damages, GS Holistic would need legal authority supporting entitlement to the requested damages and evidence supporting the amount. Any request for attorney’s fees would need supporting records concerning hours, billing rates, prevailing community rates, and the reasonableness of the requested hours. Any request for costs would need supporting evidence and legal authority.

Disposition

Judge Lisa J. Cisneros issued a procedural notice and set briefing and hearing requirements. The opinion does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved GS Holistic’s motion for default judgment.

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.