Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04114/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04114-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. CV-06-04114 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(JFEX2)

**E-Filed 03/28/2008**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DANIEL L. BALSAM.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ANGELES TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number CV 06-04114 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 1

DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

[Doc. No. 45, 47]

On May 23, 2006, Plaintiff Daniel L. Balsam (“Balsam”) filed the original complaint in

this action in the Santa Clara Superior Court. The original complaint asserted a claim for

violations of California law restricting unsolicited commercial e-mail, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §

17529.5, and a claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. 

The original complaint named defendants Angeles Technology Inc. (“Angeles”), Futurecast

Media LLC (“Futurecast”), One World Media LLC (“One World”), Carolynne Tilga (“Tilga”),

Grant Simmons (“Simmons”), John Solamito (“Solamito”), and Does 1-100.

On June 30, 2006, Tilga removed the action to this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. 

On September 25, 2006, Balsam filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). The FAC asserted the

Case 5:06-cv-04114-JF Document 48 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. CV-06-04114 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(JFEX2)

same two claims alleged in the original complaint but also added twelve new individual

defendants. (“Individual Defendants”). On December 12, 2006, the Court granted Tilga’s

motion to dismiss. At oral argument on April 5, 2007, Balsam voluntarily dismissed the

Individual Defendants. The remaining defendants are Angeles, Futurecast, One World,

Simmons, and Solamito (collectively, “Defendants”). Balsam attempted to serve Solamito by

United States Mail, but service was unsuccessful. He attempted to serve Angeles by United

States Mail as well, but the company refused to sign for the certified mail. Service on Futurecast

and One World was unsuccessful because the package containing the complaint came back as

undeliverable. Attempts at personal service on representatives of Futurecast and One World also

were unsuccessful. Balsam could not locate a physical address for Simmons. As a result,

Balsam filed a motion to serve Defendants by e-mail. On July 17, 2007, the Court granted the

motion for alternative service, finding that service sent by e-mail to

adultactioncam.com@contactprivacy.com and webmaster@AdultActionCam.com was

reasonably calculated to give notice of the action to Defendants. See Mullane v. Central

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 399 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (Due Process requires that any service of

notice be “reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the

pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”)

Proof of service was filed on August 22, 2007. The clerk entered Defendants’ default on

November 9, 2007. On December 3, 2007, Balsam filed the instant application for default

judgment, seeking statutory damages in the amount of $1,125,000. Defendants have not filed

opposition or otherwise appeared in the action.

Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a Plaintiff seeking a

default judgment to show the following: (1) when and against which party default was entered;

(2) the identification of the pleading to which default was entered; (3) whether the defaulting

party is an infant or incompetent person, and if so, whether that person is adequately represented;

(4) that the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 does not apply; and (5) that notice of

the application has been served on the defaulting party, if required. 

Balsam’s complaint alleges that Defendants are responsible for the unlawful transmittal

Case 5:06-cv-04114-JF Document 48 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Case No. CV-06-04114 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(JFEX2)

of 1,125 e-mail messages. He seeks statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 per e-mail.

Balsam’s application for default judgment complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

55(b)(2), as evidenced in his own declaration. Good cause having been shown, and without

opposition, the application for default judgment in the amount of $1,125,000 is hereby

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2008

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04114-JF Document 48 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. CV-06-04114 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(JFEX2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Counsel for Plaintiff

Timothy James Walton

Attorney at Law

ecf.cand@netatty.com

Counsel for Defendants

Angeles Technology, Inc.

Futurecast Media LLC

One World Media LLC

Grant Simmons

John Solamito

adultactioncam.com@contactprivacy.com

webmaster@adultactioncam.com

Case 5:06-cv-04114-JF Document 48 Filed 03/28/08 Page 4 of 4