Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02643/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02643-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Djaffar Chetouane
Defendant
DHMM, LLC
Plaintiff
Susan Imperial
Plaintiff
Andrew Maxwell
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

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed: May 18, 2015*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ANDREW MAXWELL; et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

DJAFFAR CHETOUANE and DOES 1 

through 10,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

No. C14-02643 HRL

INTERIM ORDER RE MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

[Re: Docket No. 21]

Andrew Maxwell, DHMM, LLC, and Susan Imperial sue Djaffar Chetouane for copyright 

infringement and related claims. Defendant was served in September 2014. Dkt. No. 14. 

Defendant did not file an answer. Plaintiffs filed a request for entry of default, and the Court 

entered default. Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiffs now move for default judgment against Defendant. Dkt. 

No. 21.

The Court has a few concerns with respect to the motion for default judgment that Plaintiffs 

shall address before the Court decides their motion. First, Plaintiffs do not indicate which claim(s) 

they move for default judgment on in their motion. Plaintiffs shall indicate which claim(s) they 

move for default judgment on.

Second, Plaintiffs do not address the factors that a court may consider when deciding 

whether to grant default judgment, that are laid out in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th 

Case 4:14-cv-02643-SBA Document 27 Filed 05/18/15 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

For the Northern District of California

Cir. 1986). Specifically, Plaintiffs did not address the merits of their substantive claims or the 

sufficiency of the complaint. Plaintiffs shall address both of these factors.

Third, Plaintiffs do not indicate the amount of damages they seek. For each claim they move 

for default judgment on, each shall indicate the exact amount of damages sought. Specifically, 

Plaintiffs shall indicate how much they seek in general damages, compensatory damages, interest,

statutory damages, and exemplary and punitive damages, as well as the basis for their calculations. 

The total amount of damages that each Plaintiff seeks for all the claims shall be clearly indicated.

Fourth, for several claims, Plaintiffs seek “general damages,” Plaintiffs shall indicate what 

they mean by the term “general damages.” Does this encompass out-of-pocket expenses, or 

something more?

Plaintiffs shall file a response within 10 days from the date of this order. The hearing 

currently set for May 19, 2015, is hereby vacated. The Court may set a new hearing date depending 

on Plaintiffs’ submissions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2015

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-02643-SBA Document 27 Filed 05/18/15 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

For the Northern District of California

C14-02643 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Stan Dale Blyth blythlaw@gmail.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 4:14-cv-02643-SBA Document 27 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 3