Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02135/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02135-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERMAN HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 MARK YERKEY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-02135 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Now pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment. Plaintiffs

noticed the motion for hearing on the same day it was filed, and, according to the electronic

docket entry, noticed the motion for hearing in San Jose, California although this Court sits

in San Francisco. Nonetheless, as plaintiffs were not required to give notice to defendant of

the motion, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2), the Court may decide plaintiffs’ motion.

Plaintiffs sue defendant for breach of contract and conversion arising from defendant

having absconded with sports memorabilia he was required, by contract, to sell on plaintiffs’

behalf. Defendant has not answered the complaint and has not otherwise communicated with

the Court and his default was entered on October 4, 2005. For purposes of a default

judgment, the Court accepts as true the facts relating to liability in plaintiffs’ pleadings. See

TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heindenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987).

Having established liability, plaintiffs are entitled to the fair market value of their 

Case 3:05-cv-02135-CRB Document 14 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\2135\orderredefault.wpd 2

converted property. See Moreno v. Greenwood Auto Center, 91 Cal.App.4th 201, 209

(2001). Plaintiffs’ affidavits establish that as to plaintiff Cavalier the fair market value of

the personal property converted is $73,500 and as to plaintiff Hernandez is $66,500.00. 

Plaintiffs also seek $7500.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to their written agreements

with defendant. Their counsel, however, merely attests that he “has expended and expects to

expend” $7500.00. Such evidence is insufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees. 

Counsel must review his billing records and file a declaration stating that he has reviewed

those records and the amount billed. If plaintiffs choose to file such a declaration, the Court

will issue an amended judgment that includes an attorney’s fee amount. Such declaration

must be filed within 10 days of the date of this Order.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment is GRANTED. The Court will issue a

judgment in the amount of $140,000. This amount consists of judgment in favor of plaintiff

Hernandez in the amount of $66,500 and judgment in favor of plaintiff Cavalier in the

amount of $73,500.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02135-CRB Document 14 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 2