Kunai, Inc. v. Allio Fintech Corporation
- 3:24-cv-01047
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Kunai v. Allio Fintech, the court issued a notice explaining the procedure and deadline for seeking default judgment; no judge is named.
Kunai, Inc. and Allio Fintech Corporation, particularly the parties’ responsibilities concerning any motion for default judgment.
What happened
Kunai, Inc. v. Allio Fintech Corporation concerns the procedure for requesting a judgment after the Clerk entered default against Allio Fintech Corporation. The court did not decide whether Kunai was entitled to judgment or damages.
The notice required any request for default judgment to be filed by June 10, 2024, and to address jurisdiction, service, the relevant decision factors, and the requested relief. If no opposition was filed, Kunai would instead have to submit proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions by the reply deadline.
The court also ordered Kunai to serve the notice on the other parties and file proof of service. The order is signed by an unreadable or incomplete designation, so the judge cannot be identified from the opinion text.
The detailed version
- Kunai, Inc. v. Allio Fintech Corporation · No. 3:24-cv-01047
- May 9, 2024
Background
The Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant Allio Fintech Corporation. The court issued this notice to explain the requirements for any motion seeking default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). The opinion does not show that a default judgment motion had been decided or that judgment had been entered.
Deadline and Filing Requirements
Any motion for default judgment had to be filed by June 10, 2024. Requests for additional time had to comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3. The motion also had to comply with Civil Local Rule 7 and follow the structure in Attachment A, including supporting legal authority and analysis.
If no opposition was filed by the deadline under Rule 7, the party seeking default judgment instead had to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the reply deadline under Rule 7. The party also had to email those proposed findings in Microsoft Word format to the court and serve the notice on all other parties, then file proof of service.
Required Analysis
Attachment A directed the party seeking judgment to address:
- the factual and procedural background; - subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority over the type of dispute; - personal jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority over the defendant; - adequate service of process; - the factors identified in Eitel v. McCool for deciding whether default judgment is appropriate; and - the requested relief, including damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The attachment stated that factual allegations other than damages are generally treated as admitted after default, but that unsupported facts, legal conclusions, and legally insufficient claims are not established by default. It also stated that a default judgment cannot differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, the relief demanded in the pleadings. The attachment required evidence and legal authority supporting any damages, fees, or costs request.
Disposition
The court issued a procedural notice and ordered service of that notice. It did not grant or deny default judgment, determine liability, award damages, or enter a final judgment. The judge’s name is not legible or otherwise identified in the provided opinion text.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.