Duran v. Boca Del Rio Agriculture, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01512
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 YADIRA DURAN, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01512-JLT-EPG 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER SETTING DEADLINE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT 12 BOCA DEL RIO AGRICULTUTRE, LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 7, 8) 14

15 16 Plaintiffs Yadira Duran and Flor Navarro filed this action on December 11, 2024, and 17 have since sought and obtained a clerk’s entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 55(a) against Defendants Boca Del Rio Agriculture, LLC, and Boca Del Rio Holdings, LLC (ECF Nos. 7, 8). Given the Clerk’s entry of default, the Court will set a deadline for Plaintiffs to move 19 for default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2).1 Additionally, the Court advises Plaintiffs of the 20 following basic requirements for a motion for default judgment.2 21 The motion must establish proper service on Defendants and the Court’s jurisdiction. In 22 re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party 23 who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its 24 jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties.”); see S.E.C. v. Internet Sols. for Bus. 25 Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We review de novo whether default judgment is void 26

27 1 Alternatively, if Plaintiffs believe a default judgment by the Clerk is appropriate under Rule 55(b)(1), Plaintiff may file such a request. 28 2 This order does not purport to advise Plaintiff of all applicable requirements. 1 | because of lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service of process.”). Here, the proof 2 | of service documents assert that Defendants were personally served. (ECF Nos. 4, 5). Plaintiff 3 | must identify which service provisions govern and specify how they were satisfied. 4 The motion must address the relevant factors regarding default judgment. See Eitel v. 5 McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting seven factors that courts may consider 6 before exercising discretion to enter default judgment). Here, the complaint identifies nine 7 counts. Plaintiff must independently address each count for which recovery is sought and address 8 whether recovery on any count means that it cannot recover on another.

9 The motion must support any request for attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. See In re Ferrell, 539 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting party seeking attorney fees and 8 costs must specify basis for such award); Schneider v. Cnty. of San Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 789 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Whether prejudgment interest is permitted in a particular case is a matter of statutory 2 interpretation, federal common law, and, in some instances, state law.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (“A 13 default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”). Here, Plaintiff must identify the recovery sought under the complaint, specify the 15 authority that supports it, and explain how any monetary amount sought is justified. 16 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 17 1. Plaintiffs have until March 20, 2025, to move for default judgment against Defendants. 18 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment shall provide developed argument, including 19 citation to the record and relevant legal authority, in addressing the requirements 20 discussed above and any other applicable requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) 21 (noting that motions must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order). 2 3. The initial scheduling conference set for March 13, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED, 23 along with related deadlines. (ECF No. 3). IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 | Dated: _ February 20, 2025 [Je hey 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28