Balkrishna Setty, et al. v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:17-cv-01146
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 BALKRISHNA SETTY, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. C17-1146-MLP 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 SHRINIVAS SUGANDHALAYA LLP, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction 15 (Mot. (dkt. # 278)) together with supporting documents (dkt. ## 283-85). The Court finds 16 Plaintiffs’ submissions deficient for several reasons. 17 First, Plaintiffs fail to specify which claims they seek judgment on. Although Plaintiffs 18 brought nine claims against Defendant (see dkt. # 163), the Motion mentions only two: Lanham 19 Act and Washington Consumer Protection Act claims. (See Mot.) Plaintiffs must clarify the 20 claims relied upon and demonstrate that the Amended Complaint’s allegations satisfy each 21 element. See Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1211 (W.D. Wash. 2014); see 22 also Advanced Hair Restoration LLC v. Parsa Mohebi, M.D., Inc., 2025 WL 2242549, at *3-4 23 1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2025) (on default judgment motion, assessing “the merit of [plaintiff’s] 2 various claims and the sufficiency of the Complaint in supporting those claims”). 3 Second, it appears Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidentiary support for the 4 damages claimed. The amount of damages awarded on default judgment must be reasonable and

5 supported by evidence; allegations are insufficient. Curtis, 33 F. Supp. 3d at 1211; see also 6 Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. United States, 323 7 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)) (“The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the 8 complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.”). Plaintiffs 9 submitted an expert report by two Certified Public Accountants who calculated lost profits based 10 on “the implicit assumption that an infringing sale made by [Defendant] would have gone to 11 [Plaintiffs] at the same sale price[.]” (Hodges Decl. (dkt. # 288), ¶ 9, Ex. 2 (dkt. # 286), ¶ 21.) 12 This assumption appears unsupported by legal support, expert opinion, or underlying evidence. 13 Finally, Plaintiffs are reminded to provide a proposed order with their Motion. See W.D. 14 Wash. Local Rules LCR 7(b)(1).

15 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause by November 21, 16 2025, why the Motion should not be denied. Plaintiffs may submit additional briefing and, if 17 necessary, expert evidence. The Clerk is directed to renote Plaintiffs’ Motion (dkt. # 278) for 18 November 21, 2025. 19 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025. 20 A 21 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 22 23