Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04477/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04477-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

NO. C 08-04477 RS

ORDER

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 6/17/10* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ISIAS GASPERIN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DSB FURNISHING DÉCOR INC., DON 

BUI, and STEVE BUI, and DOES 1-10, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 08-04477 RS 

ORDER REGARDING APPLICATION 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

Defendant DBS Furnishing Décor, Inc. (“DBS”) owned and operated various furniture stores 

over the four year period prior to the filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff Isaias Gasperin (“Gasperin”) 

was employed by DBS as a driver and laborer from 2000 to June 19, 2008. Gasperin moves for 

default judgment, liquidated damages, waiting time penalties, restitution and damages for 

inadequate pay statements pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 55(b)(2). On June 3, 

2010, an evidentiary hearing was held in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 

55(b)(2), at which counsel for plaintiff presented argument and evidence in favor of default 

judgment. Despite not having filed any papers in opposition, defendants Steve Bui and Don Bui 

appeared and argued that a default judgment is improper. 

Case 5:08-cv-04477-RS Document 83 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 3
NO. C 08-04477 RS 

ORDER

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

For the Northern District of California 

Following entry of default, district courts are authorized to grant default judgment, so long 

as the judgment does not “differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the 

pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Entry of default judgment is within 

the court’s discretion, Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980), and is governed by 

the following factors: (1) the merits of a plaintiff’s substantive claim; (2) the sufficiency of the 

complaint; (3) prejudice to a plaintiff; (4) the sum of money at stake; (5) potential disputes 

concerning material facts; (6) whether default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure’s strong policy favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 

F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Plaintiff has submitted a conclusory, five-paragraph affidavit that fails to state the day he 

started working for DBS and includes no records in support of his claims. Instead, he simply recalls 

that he worked an average of 10 hours of overtime every week from an unspecified date until June 

19, 2008. This scant record is insufficient to establish the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim 

under Eitel. 

Therefore, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is denied without prejudice; 

2. The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Trumbull in the San Jose Division of the 

Northern District of California, subject to her availability, for a settlement conference to be 

completed within 90 days, if possible. The parties are referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Program for a screening telephone call to determine whether this case is appropriate for the Assisted 

Settlement Conference Program. 

3. If defendants wish to oppose plaintiff’s application for default judgment, they are to file a 

motion for relief from the default entry. The Court notes that it makes available to parties 

representing themselves a “Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer” (aka “Pro Se Handbook), 

copies of which are available at the clerk’s office or the court’s website (www.cand.uscourts.gov). 

Case 5:08-cv-04477-RS Document 83 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 3
NO. C 08-04477 RS 

ORDER

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

For the Northern District of California 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 6/16/10 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:08-cv-04477-RS Document 83 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3