Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01076/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01076-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOGO’S EATERIES, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-1076 WBS KJM

vs.

TBR DEVELOPMENT, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment against defendants TBR

Development (“TBR”) and Fearon is pending before the court. Upon review of the motion and

the supporting documents and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS

FOLLOWS:

The amended complaint in this matter was served upon defendant TBR on

October 23, 2005 and upon defendant Fearon on October 25, 2005. Compare Pacific Atlantic

Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (default judgment void

without personal jurisdiction). Defendants have not filed an answer. The Clerk of the Court

entered defaults against these defendants on November 22, 2005. Notices of plaintiffs’ present

motion for entry of default judgment, which includes plaintiffs’ itemized requests for damages,

fees and costs, were served by mail on defendants at their last known addresses. Defendants

Case 2:05-cv-01076-WBS -KJM Document 24 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 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

2

have filed no opposition to the motion for entry of default judgment.

Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the

complaint by the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir.

1977). Entry of default judgment is proper where, as in the present case, the facts established by

the default support the causes of action pled in the complaint. The complaint and the affidavits

filed in support of the motion for entry of default judgment also support the finding that plaintiffs

are entitled to the relief in the form requested in the prayer for default judgment, which does not

differ in kind from the relief requested in the complaint. Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315, 317

(9th Cir. 1974). There are no policy considerations that preclude the entry of default judgment of

the type requested. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (listing seven

factors to be considered in determining entry of default judgment). 

In view of the foregoing findings, it is the recommendation of this court that

plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment against defendants TBR and Fearon be

GRANTED and that damages be awarded as follows:

(1) against TBR and Fearon, jointly and severally, and in favor of Togo’s in the

amount of $64,545.36 under the Franchise Agreements;

(2) against TBR and in favor of Togo’s in the amount of $104,610.46 under the

Security Agreement;

(3) against TBR and Fearon, jointly and severally, and in favor of Baskin-Robbins

in the amount of $11,765.70 under the Fairfield Franchise Agreement.

This court also recommends that attorneys’ fees and costs be awarded against

TBR and Fearon, jointly and severally, and in favor of Togo’s/Baskin-Robbins in the amount of

$19,657.82.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned

to this action, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

Case 2:05-cv-01076-WBS -KJM Document 24 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 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

3

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be

served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 3, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

togos.defjud

Case 2:05-cv-01076-WBS -KJM Document 24 Filed 04/04/06 Page 3 of 3