Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04174/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
IO Group, Inc.
Plaintiff
Aryeh Meir
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ARYEH MEIR,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-4174 SBA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff IO Group, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") Ex Parte Application for

Default Judgment against Defendant Aryeh Meir ("Defendant"). 

BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2004, Plaintiff filed the instant action. On January 11, 2005, Plaintiff moved for

entry of default due to Defendant’s failure to respond to the Complaint. On January 21, 2005, the Clerk of

the Court entered default against Defendant. On March 21, 2005, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the

Court ordered the parties to appear for a telephonic case management conference on May 12, 2005 at

3:45 p.m. In addition, the parties stipulated to set aside the default and participate in a settlement

conference, which was set for April 28, 2005. Defendant also agreed to file an answer to the Complaint or

other responsive pleading within thirty (30) days of the stipulation and order. Defendant, however, failed to

appear for the settlement conference and failed to file an answer or other responsive pleading by April 28,

2005, as required by the stipulation and order. Moreover, Defendant failed to make himself available for

the May 12, 2005 telephonic case management conference. By Order dated May 18, 2005, the Court

issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should or should not be imposed and/or default re-entered

in light of Defendant's failure to comply with the Court’s March 21, 2005 Order. The May 18, 2005

Order required both a court appearance by Defendant on June 16, 2005 and the filing of a Certificate of

Counsel by Defendant or his counsel to explain why sanctions should not be imposed and default reentered. Defendant failed to appear for the June 16, 2005 hearing and failed to file the Certificate of

Case 4:04-cv-04174-SBA Document 31 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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 2

Counsel. Consequently, the Court re-entered default against Defendant on June 21, 2005 and granted

Plaintiff leave to file a Motion for Default Judgment. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The decision of whether to grant or deny a request for default judgment lies within the sound

discretion of the district court. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirming denial

of motion for default judgment and sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff’s claims). In exercising its discretion,

the district court is guided by consideration of the following factors:

(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 atstake 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) (affirming denial of motion for default judgment

where district court had serious reservations concerning the substantive merit of the claims, a large amount

of damages were at issue, and there was a factual dispute with regard to the matters alleged in the

pleadings).

ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) states that a court may order such references as it deems

necessary to determine the amount of damages, to establish the truth of any averment by evidence, or to

make an investigation of any other matter relevant to a party's application for default judgment. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 55(b)(2). 

Plaintiff's Application for Default Judgment failed to include the requisite evidence necessary for this

Court to conduct a proper analysis of the Eitel factors. Namely Plaintiff proffered no evidence in support

of its damages claim regarding Defendant's unauthorized use of Plaintiff's photographs. Consequently, this

Court is unable to properly rule on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. Further briefing correcting this

lack of evidence is therefore required by Plaintiff. 

Case 4:04-cv-04174-SBA Document 31 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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 3

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the hearing on Plaintiff's application for default judgment is

CONTINUED from September 13, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. to October 18, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall provide the Court with supplemental briefing

and documentary evidence in support of its damages claim relating to Defendant's unauthorized use of

Plaintiff's photographs. Specifically, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with documentary evidence in support

of its claim that "[Defendant] copied, published and publicly displayed [at] least one hundred sixty-seven

(167) images owned by and registered to plaintiff." Plaintiff must file its supplemental brief and supporting

evidence no later than September 13, 2005. Plaintiff's supplemental brief shall not exceed ten (10)

pages in length. 

Plaintiff shall deliver courtesy copies of its supplemental brief and supporting evidence to chambers. 

Except as set forth in this Order, no further briefing is authorized without prior leave of the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 9-7-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04174-SBA Document 31 Filed 09/07/05 Page 3 of 3