Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03621/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03621-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

PENPOWER TECHNOLOGY LTD., and

PENPOWER INC.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

S.P.C. TECHNOLOGY, GLZ SERVICE

INC., PC MOBILE STATION.COM CORP.,

JNB GROUP INC., HERBET LIN d.b.a.

ALL TECH COMPUTER, IVY LIN d.b.a.

IVY COMPUTERS, INC., ELITE NETWORK

COMPUTER, INC., ANDY CHEN d.b.a.

DRIFTING COMPUTER, JACK WANG d.b.a.

SHENZHOU COMPUTER MALL INC., TONY

CHANG d.b.a. AZIANEAGLE, AND NEW

YORK COMPUTER SUPPLY INC.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-3621 SC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

The present matter comes before the Court on the Motion for

Default Judgment ("Motion") filed by the plaintiffs Penpower

Technology Ltd. and Penpower Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs"). 

Docket No. 23. The Clerk of the Court entered default against all

Defendants save S.P.C. Technology and GLZ Service, Inc. Docket

Nos. 13, 22. Both of these Defendants, however, were voluntarily

dismissed. Docket Nos. 5, 14. 

After entry of default, the Court may enter a default

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). "However, entry of default does

not automatically entitle the non-defaulting party to entry of a

Case 3:07-cv-03621-SC Document 27 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

default judgment regardless of the fact that the effect of entry

of a default is to deem allegations admitted." In re Villegas,

132 B.R. 742, 746 (9th Cir. BAP 1991). Rather, "the decision to

enter a default judgment is discretionary." Alan Neuman Prods.,

Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988). First, the

Court must "assess the adequacy of service of process on the party

against whom default is requested." Bd. of Trs. of the N. Cal.

Sheet Metal Workers v. Peters, No. C-00-0395 VRW, 2000 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 19065, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2001). Once the Court

determines that service was sufficient, it may consider the

following factors when exercising its discretion to enter 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 decisions on the

merits.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). "The

general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations

of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages,

will be taken as true." Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d

557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). 

In the present case, the evidence presented by Plaintiffs in

support of their damages is insufficient. Before the Court

undertakes the above-detailed analysis to determine whether

default judgment is appropriate, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to submit

Case 3:07-cv-03621-SC Document 27 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 The Court notes that were it to rule on the injunctive

relief at this time, such relief would not be warranted by the

evidence in the record.

3

additional evidence detailing their damages, including, but not

limited to, the following:

- Affidavits from both Penpower Technology and Penpower Inc.

justifying the amount of damages sought.

- Affidavits from Plaintiffs' counsel justifying the amount

sought for attorneys' fees. This justification is to include a

detailed explanation of the $10,575.50 in fees that counsel Debra

Shih, in her declaration, refers to.

- Any evidence to justify the injunctive relief sought by

Plaintiffs.1

This evidence shall be filed by Friday, April 25, at 12:00

p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2008

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03621-SC Document 27 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 3