Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02643/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02643-2/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

Northern District of California

E-Filed 9/8/2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW MAXWELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DJAFFAR CHETOUANE,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02643-HRL 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 28

Plaintiffs Andrew Maxwell, Susan Imperial, and DHMM, LLC sued Defendant Djaffar 

Chetouane for copyright infringement and related claims. Plaintiffs served Mr. Chetouane and 

moved for an entry of default, which the clerk of the court entered. Plaintiffs moved for a default 

judgment in March 2015 and filed a proposed order. The court issued an interim order that listed 

several concerns with the motion for default judgment, including Plaintiffs’ failure to address “the 

factors that a court may consider when deciding whether to grant default judgment[.]” Dkt. No. 

27; see Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). The court specifically ordered 

Plaintiffs to address two default-judgment factors in a responsive filing: “the merits of their 

substantive claims [and] the sufficiency of the complaint.” Dkt. No. 27. Plaintiffs responded with

their first amended motion for default judgment and a new proposed order. Dkt. Nos. 28, 30. The 

court now resolves Plaintiffs’ first amended motion for default judgment.

Discussion

This court has discretion in whether to grant a default judgment after default has been 

entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).

Plaintiffs have failed to follow the court’s interim order. The amended motion and the new 

proposed order do not include meaningful analysis of the two default-judgment factors that the 

court ordered Plaintiffs to analyze. Plaintiffs purported to analyze the merits of their claims with 

Case 4:14-cv-02643-SBA Document 31 Filed 09/08/15 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

the assertion that “evidence contained in” the declarations of Mr. Maxwell and Ms. Imperial 

provides a basis to conclude Plaintiffs’ substantive claims “have merit.” Dkt. No. 30 at 3. This 

citation to a broad set of facts, without analysis of particular facts, provides the court with a 

conclusion rather than meaningful analysis. Plaintiffs have also failed to adequately analyze the 

sufficiency of their complaint with respect to most of the counts on which they seek judgment. 

Plaintiffs’ new proposed order repeatedly states the legal standard for a count along with the 

abrupt conclusion that the complaint contains “sufficient[]” or “satisfactory[]” pleadings for that 

count. Dkt. No. 30 at 4-6. Meaningful analysis would, instead, explain how specific factual 

allegations plausibly entitle Plaintiffs to relief under specific counts. Plaintiffs have therefore 

failed to provide adequate analysis of their claims’ merits and their pleadings’ sufficiency.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs failed to follow the court’s interim order when they failed to adequately analyze 

whether the pleadings are sufficient and whether their substantive claims have merit. The court 

therefore exercises its discretion to deny the first amended motion for default judgment without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02643-SBA Document 31 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 2