Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01255/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Explore Travels, Corp.
Defendant
IntelePeer Cloud Communications, LLC
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

INTELEPEER CLOUD 

COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPLORE TRAVELS, CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01255-DMR 

ORDER TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 13

On June 1, 2016, Plaintiff IntelePeer Cloud Communications, LLC (“IntelePeer”) filed a 

motion for default judgment. [Docket No. 13.] Having reviewed that motion, this court 

determines that additional briefing is necessary.

Plaintiff must provide further information regarding the adequacy of service on 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). Plaintiff filed

Proofs of Service showing that the Complaint and the Motion for Default Judgment were served 

on Defendant by sending the documents via certified U.S. mail. [Docket Nos. 8, 13-4]. 

However, the addresses listed for service do not match the address listed for Defendant Explore 

Travels Corp. on the New York Department of State, Division of Corporations website. The court 

requests an explanation regarding the discrepancy of addresses.

Further, the court requests supplemental briefing to support the Plaintiff’s request for 

damages. 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 Tr. 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01255-SI Document 16 Filed 06/13/16 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

Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Plaintiff requests $187,797.01 in total contractual liability. Mot. at 3; see also Stachowicz 

Decl. [Docket No. 13-1] at 1-2. The Finance Operation Director at IntelePeer, Chad Stachowicz,

has provided a declaration that breaks down the charges. It includes the following two charges in

need of supporting documentation: 

(1) A charge of $13,037.56 from Invoice No. 81593 dated December 1, 2015. This invoice 

was provided as Exhibit 5 of the Complaint, and represents an amount due of $1,103.00 as 

opposed to the $13,037.56 requested in the Stachowicz Declaration. Compl. Ex. 5; 

Stachowicz Decl. at 2. Plaintiff must explain and provide evidence for this discrepancy. 

(2) A charge of $40,000.00 dated April 1, 2016. Stachowicz Decl. at 2. This charge does 

not have an invoice reference, nor is it supported elsewhere. Plaintiff must an explanation 

and proper evidence supporting this request. 

Plaintiff shall submit additional briefing by June 20, 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 27, 2016.

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: June 13, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01255-SI Document 16 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 2