Doe v. Steele

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JANE DOE, Case No. 20-cv-1818-MMA-MSB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING HEARING ON 13 v. RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFUALT JUDGMENT 14 CISSY STEELE, et al.,

15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 129] 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jane Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for default 19 judgment against Defendant 24-7 Internet, Inc. (“Defendant”). See Doc. No. 129. This is 20 Plaintiff’s second attempt at obtaining default judgment against Defendant. See Doc. 21 Nos. 121, 129. 22 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), the Court may enter default 23 judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend an action. See 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). The Ninth Circuit has provided seven factors for consideration by 25 the district court in exercising its discretion to enter default judgment: 26 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s 27 substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money 28 at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; 1 (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 3 4 || Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 6 Moore’s Federal 5 || Practice § 55-05[2], at 55-24 to 55-26). Having reviewed Plaintiff's renewed motion, the 6 || Court is inclined to find that Plaintiff has satisfied the Kite/ factors. However, the Court 7 concerns regarding the propriety of entering default judgment against Defendant at 8 time. Accordingly, the Court SETS this matter for hearing on September 19, 2023 9 || at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3C. Plaintiff should come prepared to offer evidence and 10 || argument regarding proper service upon Defendant,’ the Court’s personal jurisdiction 11 Defendant, and whether default was properly entered against Defendant.’ 12 || Additionally, because the amount claimed 1s neither a liquidated sum nor capable of 13 mathematical calculation, see Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981), 14 || Plaintiff must “prove up” all sought monetary damages and come prepared to submit 15 admissible evidence substantiating her claim to $600,000 in damages. See, e.g., Blizzard 16 || Entm’t, Inc. v. Reeves, No. CV 09-7621 SVW (AJWx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85560, 17 2010 WL 4054095, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2010). 19 ||Dated: September 8, 2023 20 pWihick Ta -f ipltr 21 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 22 United States District Judge 23 24 95 Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with the summons issued by the Clerk of Court as to the First Amended Complaint, see Doc. No. 15, but rather Plaintiff served Defendant with the summons that was 26 || initially issued as to the original complaint, see Doc. No. 2, which did not name Defendant as a party to this action. Additionally, it appears Defendant’s registered agent was not served. 27 Plaintiff initially identified Defendant as “24-7 Internet, Inc.” See Doc. No. 12. However, it appears 28 that this entity’s correct name is “24-7 Internet, LLC.” See Doc. No. 62. Nonetheless, Plaintiff requested, and the Clerk of Court entered, default against “24-7 Internet, Inc.” See Doc. Nos. 63, 64. sy