Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03276/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03276-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAINAWAY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED 

ACN 151 146 977,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATURES INVESTMENTS HOLDING 

PTY LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03276-DMR 

ORDER TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 18

On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. [Docket No. 18.] 

Having reviewed that motion, this court determines that Plaintiff did not brief its entitlement to the 

entry of default judgment pursuant to the factors enumerated in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff also did not brief the issue of 

this court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(before assessing merits of motion for default judgment, court must confirm that it has subject 

matter jurisdiction over case and personal jurisdiction over parties, as well as ensure adequacy of 

service on defendant). 

Further, Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Although Plaintiff 

submitted a breakdown of the services provided, time expended, and fees charged, it did not 

submit evidence of the hourly rates requested and whether they are reasonable. See Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (“[t]he most useful starting point for determining the amount 

of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied bya 

reasonable hourly rate.”); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 (1984) (holding that the reasonable 

hourly rate depends on “the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.”).

Plaintiff shall submit additional briefing by October 16, 2015 to address the above 

Case 4:15-cv-03276-DMR Document 21 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Northern District of California

deficiencies in the motion for default judgment. Any opposition or statement of non-opposition is 

due no later than October 20, 2015.

Immediately upon receipt of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with a copy of 

this Order and file a proof of service with the court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-03276-DMR Document 21 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 2