Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00105/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00105-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

MCKESSON CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEW IBERIA RX INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00105-DMR 

ORDER TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 21

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff McKesson Corporation filed a motion for default judgment. 

[Docket No. 16.] On May 12, 2016, the court instructed the Plaintiff to provide supplemental 

briefing in support of its motion for default judgment, which the Plaintiff filed. [Docket Nos. 20

and 21.] Having reviewed the motion for default judgment and supplemental briefing, the court 

determines that additional supplemental briefing is required. 

Plaintiff did not address the adequacy of service on Defendants. 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). Specifically, the addresses on the Proofs of 

Service (Docket Nos. 7-9) do not match either the Certificate of Summons (Docket No. 21-1) or 

the address for the registered agent for service of process listed on the State of Louisiana Secretary 

of State website for either New Iberia or Zachary.

Further, Plaintiff’s request for damages is not sufficiently supported. In order to recover 

damages after securing a default judgment, a plaintiff must prove the relief it seeks by submitting 

proper evidence by way of a sworn affidavit. Bd. of Trs. of the Boilermaker Vacation Trust v. 

Skelly, Inc., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see Pepsico, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 

F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 

Case 3:16-cv-00105-RS Document 22 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 3
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

917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Plaintiff claims that their updated computation of amounts owed by Defaulting Defendants 

is more in the Application for Default Judgment (Docket No. 16 ¶ 3(a)-(c)) and Supplement

(Docket No. 21) than sought in the Complaint (Docket No. 1) because it is updated to include the 

contractual finance charge of 1.5% per month. However, nowhere in the contract(s) provided is a 

finance charge of 1.5% per month explicitly designated. See Compl. Exs. 1, 3. The Plaintiff must 

provide proof of the source of the 1.5% finance charge. Further, although Plaintiff seeks to recover

unpaid invoices less credits applied (Docket No. 21 at 3–4), the evidence provided includes 

additional lines of fees not explained elsewhere. For example, included in the Statements for New 

Iberia (Franco Decl. Ex. 2) and Zachary (Franco Decl. Ex. 5) are fees for “Fee Billing,” “Returned 

Check” and “Returned Check Fee.” One such “Returned Check” is in the amount of $69,869.73, 

while other lines include no description at all (for example, including amounts of $1425.91 and 

$2,994.63). [Franco Decl. Ex. 2.] Plaintiff must explicitly state the amount it is requesting by 

category and support the request with evidence from the Contract that it is entitled to the requested 

amount.

Plaintiff must also clarify whether it is requesting attorneys’ fees. Although reference to 

attorneys’ fees is made in several places (e.g. Docket No. 21 at 6), no request is specifically sought 

nor are attorneys’ fees listed in the Damages request (Docket No. 21 at 12). If requesting 

attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff must provide supporting documentation of fees and the amount requested. 

Plaintiff must submit a detailed accounting sufficient to support Plaintiff’s requested award of 

reasonable attorneys’ fees for litigating this action, such that the court may determine whether the 

time spent was “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 

424, 434 (1983); see also N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 54-5. Furthermore, Plaintiff appears to request 

costs, but this request is not supported by sufficient documentation. If Plaintiff wishes to be 

awarded costs, it must submit an accounting to support Plaintiff’s request specifying the amount

sought and the costs incurred. A reference to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs is not sufficient. [Docket 

No. 21 (Suppl. Brief) at 12.] Further, Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs appears to request service of process 

fees for a separate and unrelated case, McKesson v. Apothecary Specialty LLC. [Docket No. 18 at 

Case 3:16-cv-00105-RS Document 22 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Northern District of California

4.] 

Plaintiff shall submit additional briefing by June 2, 2016, to address the above deficiencies 

in the motion for default judgment. Any opposition or statement of non-opposition is due no later 

than June 8, 2016.

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00105-RS Document 22 Filed 05/26/16 Page 3 of 3