Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CORP. et al,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-01830 CRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AMENDING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AGAINST DAEWOO ELECTRONICS

COMPANY, LTD. (DECL) AND

DAEWOO ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.

(DECA)

Now pending before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order

Granting Default Judgment filed by defendants Daewoo Electronics Corporation (DEC) and

Daewoo Electronics America, Inc. (DEAM). Defendants oppose the Court’s entry of default

judgment on October 7, 2005, against Daewoo Electronics, Ltd. (DECL) and Daewoo

Electronics Corporation of America, Inc. (DECA). The non-defaulting defendants urge the

Court to hold the default judgment in abeyance until the case-in-chief is resolved in order to

avoid potentially inconsistent judgments. See Frow v. De la Vega, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 552

(1872). After carefully considering the parties’ moving papers, and with the benefit of oral

argument, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court further finds that

there is no just reason to delay the entry of default judgment against some but not all

defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court’s October 7 Default Judgment remains in

effect, amended as follows:

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 219 Filed 12/12/05 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\2004\1830\order amending default judgment.wpd 2

1. The Court finds that, based on plaintiff’s representation that the defaulting

defendants have assets remaining, there are exigent circumstances warranting

immediate entry of a default judgment. The additional international

connections of the defaulting defendants add to the urgent nature of the

judgment. Moreover, any success plaintiff has in collecting on the judgment

further inures the non-defaulting defendants from possible future liability for

the default judgment.

2. The Court will not consider plaintiff’s recently added successor and joint and

several liability claims until after the patent infringement claims are resolved. 

3. To the extent that the default judgment may ultimately become inconsistent

with a resolution on the merits, and that the non-defaulting parties are found to

be either the successors in interest of or jointly and severally liable with the

defaulting parties, the non-defaulting parties may file a motion to amend the

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 219 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 2