Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02363/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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 - 10cv2363

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE B. SWANSON; NATALIE

SWANSON,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10-cv-2363 - IEG (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 11]

vs.

ERIC HOLDER, in his official capacity as

Attorney General, United States Department

of Justice; TOM VILSACK, in his official

capacity as Secretary of the United States

Department of Agriculture; TOM TIDWELL,

in his official capacity as Chief of USDA

Forest Service; KEN SALAZAR, in his

official capacity as Secretary of the United

States Department of the Interior; BOB

ABBEY, in his official capacity as Director

of the United States Bureau of Land

Management; THOMAS GILLETT, in his

official capacity as the District Ranger for the

Descanco Ranger District of Cleveland

National Forest,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs George B. Swanson and Natalie Swanson’s motion

for default judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ motion.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the complaint. In 1974, Plaintiffs purchased five

mining claims and a millsite named Lord Elgin’s Silver Duke Millsite located within the

Case 3:10-cv-02363-IEG-NLS Document 14 Filed 08/26/11 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

27

28

- 2 - 10cv2363

Cleveland National Forest. [Compl. ¶ 17.] From 1995 to 2006, the federal government placed

restrictions on Plaintiffs’ access to the millsite and Plaintiffs’ mining claims. [Id. ¶¶ 37-66.] Since

2006, the federal government, specifically the United States Forest Service, has exercised

dominion and control over Plaintiffs’ personal property located at the millsite as well as their right

to use the structures at the millsite. [Id. ¶ 67.] 

Based on these restrictions to their property, Plaintiffs filed the present lawsuit against

Defendants Eric Holder, Tom Vilsack, Tom Tidwell, Ken Salazar, Bob Abbey, and Thomas

Gillett, alleging causes of action for (1) trespass to chattels, (2) conversion, (3) negligence, and (4)

declaratory and injunctive relief. [Doc. No. 1.] When Defendants failed to respond to the

complaint, and after the Clerk of Court entered default, Plaintiffs filed the present motion for

default judgment seeking $312,000.00 plus interest. [Doc. Nos. 7-8, 11.]

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard for a Default Judgment

A district court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for default judgment. Aldabe v. Aldabe,

616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In exercising its discretion to grant or deny relief, the district

court should consider:

(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) (citation omitted). Upon entry of default,

the factual allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint will be taken as true, except for those relating to

the amount of damages. See TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir.

1987). If plaintiff is seeking money damages, the plaintiff “is required to provide evidence of its

damages, and the damages sought must not be different in kind or amount from those set forth in

the complaint.” Amini Innovation Corp. v. KTY Int’l Mktg., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053-54 (C.D.

Cal. 2011).

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-02363-IEG-NLS Document 14 Filed 08/26/11 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

27

28

1

 Local Civil Rule 7.1(f)(1) provides: “Each motion or other request for ruling by the court

must be accompanied by a separate motion and notice of motion and another separate document

captioned ‘Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of [the motion].’”

- 3 - 10cv2363

B. Analysis

Plaintiffs’ motion contains no legal analysis or any discussion of the Eitel factors showing

that Plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment. Plaintiffs’ motion is also not supported by a

separate memorandum of point and authorities as required by Local Civil Rule 7.1(f)(1).1

Plaintiffs only provide the Court with a short attorney affidavit stating that Plaintiffs’ damages for

their claims is $312,000.00. [Doc. No. 11-1 ¶ 10.] In support of this damages claim, the affidavit

only references a letter from the United States Department of Agriculture that was attached to the

complaint stating that Plaintiffs’ claim was seeking $312,000.00. [See id. ¶ 9; Doc. No. 1 at 16.] 

This letter is only evidence of the amount of damages that Plaintiffs are requesting; the letter is not

evidence showing that Plaintiffs are entitled to that amount. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to

provide the required evidence in support of their claim for monetary damages. See Amini

Innovation, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 1053-54. Because Plaintiffs have fail to provide any legal support

for their motion or evidence in support of their claim for monetary damages, the Court DENIES

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’

motion for default judgment. In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ motion was filed without

first obtaining a hearing date for the motion from chambers. The Court directs Plaintiffs to obtain

a hearing date from chambers prior to the filing of any future motions in accordance with Local

Civil Rule 7.1(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 26, 2011 ________________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-02363-IEG-NLS Document 14 Filed 08/26/11 Page 3 of 3