Orellana Izaguirre v. Prosper Builders, Inc.

Background

Oscar Rene Orellana Izaguirre brought the action against Prosper Builders, Inc., Quoc K. Truong, and Thai Truong, alleging violations of various wage-and-hour laws. The summonses initially were returned unexecuted. Plaintiff later stated that Quoc K. Truong and Thai Truong had been served on March 22, 2023, and the court authorized service on Prosper Builders through the California Secretary of State. Plaintiff filed proof of service for Prosper Builders and later requested entry of default against all defendants. The clerk entered default on June 21, 2023.

Plaintiff then filed a timely motion for default judgment. No defendant opposed the motion.

Legal standard

A default judgment is a judgment that may be entered when a defendant has failed to respond. Before entering one, the court must assess whether service of process was adequate and whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction means the court’s authority over the particular defendants. The court must also weigh the seven factors identified in Eitel v. McCool, including the possible prejudice to the plaintiff, the apparent strength of the claims, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount at stake, the possibility of factual disputes, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the federal preference for decisions on the merits.

Court’s analysis

The court could not determine from the record that service on the individual defendants was proper. Plaintiff’s proofs of service described substitute service and mailing but did not show the reasonable diligence required by California law for substitute service. Plaintiff also did not specify which law authorized the method used.

The proofs of service stated that the summonses and complaints were left with or in the presence of “Thuy Truong,” identified as “sister/occupant,” and mailed to an address in Sacramento. Elsewhere, Plaintiff identified that address as the individual defendants’ home address, while the complaint stated that the defendants resided in the Northern District of California. The court required additional evidence addressing whether the individual defendants were served at the correct address by an authorized method.

The court also required any renewed motion to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants and that venue in the Northern District was proper. In addition, although Plaintiff provided a calculation of claimed damages that could relate to the factor concerning the amount of money at stake, the motion did not specifically address the remaining Eitel factors.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment because Plaintiff had not established proper service on the individual defendants, had not addressed the court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and had not addressed all of the Eitel factors. The denial was without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to file a renewed motion addressing the deficiencies by September 11, 2023.