Construction Laborers Trust Funds for Southern California Administrative Company v. Fuentez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 13, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00466
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONSTRUCTION LABORERS TRUST Case No. 1:24-cv-000466-CDB FUNDS FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 12 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON 13 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 14 JUDGMENT v. 15 (Docs. 16, 30) JERRY MICHAEL FUENTEZ, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is the motion for default judgment by Plaintiff Construction 19 Laborers Trust Funds for Southern California Administrative Company (“Plaintiff”) against 20 Defendant Jerry Michael Fuentez (“Defendant”), filed February 26, 2024. (Doc. 16). 21 On June 12, 2024, the Court convened for hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for default 22 judgment. (Doc. 30). Natalia Bautista appeared on behalf of Plaintiff via video. Id. Defendant 23 did not appear. Id. 24 When considering a motion for default judgment, “[i]f the court determines that the 25 allegations in the complaint are sufficient to establish liability, it must then determine the ‘amount 26 and character’ of the relief that should be awarded.” Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enters., Inc., 27 725 F. Supp.2d 916, 920 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed. Prac. 1 As discussed during the hearing and preserved on the record, the Court determined 2 | supplemental briefing was necessary to support Plaintiff’s claim to the monetary relief sought. In 3 | particular, the Court determines that the supporting declaration of Yvonne Higa in which Plaintiff 4 | sets forth its methodology for auditing records and computing Defendant’s alleged delinquency 5 | does not adequately explain the basis for the proffered calculations. See (Docs. 16-2 □ 21 & 16- 6 | 12 [Ex.9]). Further, Plaintiff's request for attorney fees (Doc. 16-2 at 13-14) does not comply 7 | with E.D. Local Rule 293. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. Within 14 days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental 10 brief addressing the aforementioned issues consistent with the discussion 11 preserved on the record during the motion hearing; and 12 2. Plaintiff shall serve on Defendant a copy of this order and a copy of Plaintiff’s 13 supplemental briefing within three (3) days of the briefing’s filing and shall file 14 proof of service promptly thereafter. 15 | IT IS SO ORDERED. '©) Dated: _ June 13, 2024 | br Pr 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28