AT&T Corporation v. Interstate Holdings
AT&T Corporation, a New York corporation v. Interstate Holdings, LLC dba Concord Hilton, a California limited liability company
- 3:23-cv-00938
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In AT&T Corporation v. Interstate Holdings, the court issued a July 7, 2023 notice explaining procedures for a possible default-judgment motion.
AT&T Corporation must serve the notice and file proof of service. Interstate Holdings, LLC dba Concord Hilton and any other parties are affected by the procedures that would apply if default is later entered.
What happened
In AT&T Corporation v. Interstate Holdings, the court issued an amended notice about the process for requesting a judgment against a defendant that has not responded. The notice did not enter default judgment or decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The Clerk of Court had twice declined to enter default against Interstate Holdings, LLC doing business as Concord Hilton. The notice stated that if the Clerk later entered default, AT&T would have 45 days to file a motion for default judgment, subject to the court’s rules. It also listed the required contents of that motion, including evidence and analysis concerning jurisdiction, service, the relevant factors, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The court ordered AT&T to serve the notice on the other parties and file proof of service. The judge’s name is not clearly identified in the provided text, so this summary refers to the issuing judge as the court.
The detailed version
- AT&T Corporation v. Interstate Holdings · No. 3:23-cv-00938
- July 7, 2023
Background
AT&T Corporation sued Interstate Holdings, LLC doing business as Concord Hilton. The Clerk of Court had declined twice to enter default against Interstate Holdings. The court therefore issued an amended notice describing the procedures that would apply if the Clerk later entered default.
What the Notice Required
The notice stated that a motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) would have to be filed no later than 45 days after the Clerk’s entry of default. Any request for more time would have to comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3.
The motion would also have to comply with Civil Local Rule 7 and the outline in Attachment A. If no opposition were filed by the applicable deadline, the moving party would instead have 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. The notice stated that no chambers copies were required.
Attachment A
Attachment A directed a future default-judgment motion to address:
- the relief requested and proposed disposition; - the factual and procedural background; - the legal standard for default judgment; - subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and service of process; - each factor identified by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for evaluating default judgment; - the requested damages, attorney’s fees, and costs; and - the proposed conclusion, including any specific award and judgment.
The attachment explained that factual allegations other than damages are generally treated as admitted at the default-judgment stage, but facts that are not adequately pleaded and legally insufficient claims are not established merely by default. It also stated that a default judgment cannot provide relief different in kind from, or greater in amount than, what the pleadings demand. The attachment required supporting legal authority and evidence for damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Disposition
The court did not enter default, grant or deny default judgment, decide liability, or award damages, fees, or costs. It ordered AT&T to serve the notice on all other parties and file proof of service. The judge’s name is not clearly legible or otherwise identified in the provided opinion text; accordingly, the metadata identifies the judge as the court.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.