Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03631/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03631-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:185 Employee Pension Plan

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE 

TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GARRETT THOMPSON 

CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:19-cv-03631-JST (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 21

On December 12, 2019, Plaintiffs Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare 

Trust Fund for Northern California, et al. filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 21.) All 

briefing shall be in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7, including opposition and reply filing 

deadlines. However, if no opposition is filed by the deadline under Rule 7, Plaintiffs shall instead 

file a proposed order by the reply deadline. The submission shall be structured as outlined in 

Attachment A below and include all relevant legal authority and analysis necessary to establish the 

case. Plaintiffs shall also email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word (.docx) format to 

kawpo@cand.uscourts.gov. No chambers copies of the proposed order need to be submitted.

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve this notice upon all other parties in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2019

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-03631-JST Document 24 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ATTACHMENT A

* * *

INTRODUCTION

(Relief sought and disposition.)

I. BACKGROUND

(The pertinent factual and procedural background, including citations to the Complaint and 

record. Plaintiff(s) should be mindful that only facts in the Complaint are taken as true for 

purposes of default judgment; therefore, Plaintiff(s) should cite to the Complaint whenever 

possible.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

(Include the following standard)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court to enter a final judgment in a case 

following a defendant’s default. Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 

995, 999 (N.D. Cal. 2001). Whether to enter a judgment lies within the court’s discretion. Id. at 

999 (citing Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Before assessing the merits of a default judgment, a court must confirm that it has subject 

matter jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over the parties, as well as ensure the 

adequacy of service on the defendant. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). If the 

court finds these elements satisfied, it turns to the following factors (“the Eitel factors”) to 

determine whether it should grant a default judgment: 

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of 

plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) 

the sum of money at stake in the action[,] (5) the possibility of a 

dispute concerning material facts[,] (6) whether the default was due 

to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decision on the merits. 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Upon entry of default, 

all factual allegations within the complaint are accepted as true, except those allegations relating to 

the amount of damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Where a default judgment is granted, the scope of relief “must not differ in kind from, or exceed in 

Case 4:19-cv-03631-JST Document 24 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction and Service of Process

(Include the following standard)

In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine 

whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 

707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to 

plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over 

both the subject matter and the parties.”).

i. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

(Establish the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, including citations to relevant case 

law and United States Code provisions.)

ii. Personal Jurisdiction

(Establish the basis for the Court’s personal jurisdiction, including citations to relevant legal 

authority, specific to each defendant. If seeking default judgment against any out-of-state 

defendants, this shall include a minimum contacts analysis under Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin 

Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

iii. Service of Process

(Establish the adequacy of the service of process on the party against whom default is requested, 

including relevant provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.)

B. Application to the Case at Bar

(A detailed analysis of each individual Eitel factor, separated by numbered headings. Factors 2 

(merits of substantive claims) and 3 (sufficiency of complaint) may be listed and analyzed under 

one heading. Plaintiff(s) shall include citations to cases that are factually similar, preferably 

within the Ninth Circuit.)

IV. RELIEF SOUGHT

(An analysis of any relief sought, including a calculation of damages, attorneys’ fees, etc., with 

citations to relevant legal authority.) 

Case 4:19-cv-03631-JST Document 24 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1. Damages

(As damages alleged in the complaint are not accepted as true, the proposed findings must 

provide (a) legal authority establishing entitlement to such damages, and (b) citations to evidence 

supporting the requested damages.) 

2. Attorney’s Fees

(If attorney’s fees and costs are sought, the proposed findings shall include the following: (1) 

Evidence supporting the request for hours worked, including a detailed breakdown and 

identification of the subject matter of each person’s time expenditures, accompanied by actual 

billing records and/or time sheets; (2) Documentation justifying the requested billing rates, such 

as a curriculum vitae or resume; (3) Evidence that the requested rates are in line with those 

prevailing in the community, including rate determinations in other cases of similarly complex 

litigation, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiff’s attorney; and (4) Evidence that the 

requested hours are reasonable, including citations to other cases of similarly complex litigation 

(preferably from this District). 

3. Costs

(Any request for costs must include citations to evidence supporting the requested costs and 

relevant legal authority establishing entitlement to such costs.) 

V. CONCLUSION

(Disposition, including any specific award amount(s) and judgment.)

* * *

Case 4:19-cv-03631-JST Document 24 Filed 12/18/19 Page 4 of 4