Farrell v. Manteris-Sunstrum Companies, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedNovember 8, 2019
Docket2:19-cv-00029
StatusUnknown

This text of Farrell v. Manteris-Sunstrum Companies, LLC (Farrell v. Manteris-Sunstrum Companies, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farrell v. Manteris-Sunstrum Companies, LLC, (D. Nev. 2019).

Opinion

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 LISA FARRELL, 11 Case No.: 2:19-cv-00029-GMN-NJK Plaintiff(s), 12 Order v. 13 [Docket No. 10] MANTERIS-SUNSTRUM COMPANIES, 14 LLC, 15 Defendant(s). 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for entry of default judgment. See 17 Docket No. 10. The Court SETS that motion for a hearing at 11:00 a.m. on December 4, 2019. 18 The Court will hear argument on the motion generally. In addition, however, Plaintiff must be 19 prepared at that hearing to “prove-up” the amount of her damages and to establish that she is 20 entitled to each form of relief being sought in the event default judgment is entered. Plaintiff 21 herself must appear personally and be prepared to testify, in addition to submitting thereat any 22 documentary evidence that Plaintiff wishes to be considered. 23 Plaintiff must also file a supplemental brief addressing the following: 24 • whether an award of liquidated damages is available in this case, as it does not appear 25 that liquidated damages are sought in the complaint, see Docket No. 1 at 8 (prayer for 26 relief); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (“A default judgment must not differ in kind from, 27 or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings”); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. 28 1 Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 499 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (“the demand for relief 2 must be specific’’); 3 e whether an employer’s failure to participate in administrative proceedings constitutes 4 evidence of willfulness as required to obtain liquidated damages, compare Mot. at 9 5 (quoting case law that willfulness is shown through the reckless disregard for whether 6 the underlying conduct is prohibited) with id. at 10 (arguing that willfulness exists here 7 based on Defendant’s failure to participate in subsequent administrative proceedings); 8 and 9 e if an award of liquidated damages is available, the manner and quantum of the factual 10 showing needed to obtain such relief in the context of default judgment.! 11|| This supplemental brief must be filed by November 26, 2019. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: November 8, 2019 14 4. A S a Nancy J» e 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ———______________ asl at 9. ' The instant motion states only that willfulness is a question for the jury to decide. Mot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Castworld Products, Inc.
219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. California, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Farrell v. Manteris-Sunstrum Companies, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-manteris-sunstrum-companies-llc-nvd-2019.