Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01660/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01660-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CIB International Trading, Inc.
Defendant
Golden Gate Nut Company
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GOLDEN GATE NUT COMPANY, a 

California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CIB INTERNATIONAL TRADING, INC., 

a Canadian corporation, and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-1660-GEB-EFB 

ORDER 

 On November 18, 2013, plaintiff, Golden Gate Nut Company, filed a motion for entry of 

default judgment against defendant, CIB International Trading, Inc. (“CIB”).1

 Plaintiff noticed 

the motion for hearing on January 8, 2014. As explained below, the motion for default judgment 

is deficient. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice and the January 8, 2014 hearing 

vacated. 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default may be entered against a party 

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought who fails to plead or otherwise defend 

against the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). However, “[a] defendant’s default does not 

 1

 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California 

Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:13-cv-01660-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 

238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 

(9th Cir. 1986)). Instead, the decision to grant or deny an application for default judgment lies 

within the district court’s sound discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 

1980). In making this determination, the court considers 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 at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a 

dispute concerning the 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). 

 Plaintiff’s application for default judgment amounts to little more than a statement 

informing the court that defendant is in default and that plaintiff seeks default judgment against 

defendant pursuant to Local Rule 230 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b).2 The motion 

does not address the Eitel factors or otherwise explain why default judgment is appropriate in this 

case. See ECF No. 12 at 1-2. The affidavit of Stacy Henderson, plaintiff’s counsel, which was 

submitted with the motion, is also devoid of any discussion concerning the standard for entering 

default judgment. See id. at 3-4. 

 There are other troubling deficiencies. Plaintiff seeks to recover prejudgment interest at a 

rate of 10 percent per annum, but fails to provide any explanation as to how it arrived at this 

interest rate. See ECF No. 12 at 3-4. Plaintiff also requests $3,097.50 in attorney’s fees, but does 

not explain how the requested attorney’s fees were calculated. Id. at 4. This court’s local rules 

require a party seeking an award of attorney’s fees to submit an affidavit addressing certain 

criteria that the court will consider in determining whether an award of attorney’s fees is 

appropriate. See E.D. Cal. L. R. 293(b) and (c). Plaintiff’s affidavit does not address the criteria 

delineated in this court’s local rules. 

///// 

 2

 The two paragraph motion also states that plaintiff is seeking damages, prejudgment 

interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. ECF No. 12. 

Case 2:13-cv-01660-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 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 

3

 Furthermore, this case involves a defendant that is a Canadian corporation. Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s affidavit concludes that defendant was properly served pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(f), but does not identify the applicable requirements for serving process on a 

foreign defendant nor show how those requirements were met. See ECF No. 12 at 3. Prior to the 

entry of a default judgment, plaintiff must establish that the defendant has been properly served. 

The conclusory statement in counsel’s affidavit does not do that. 

 Due to these deficiencies, plaintiff’s application for default judgment is denied without 

prejudice. Plaintiff may renew the motion. In doing so, plaintiff must cure the deficiencies 

identified above. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The January 8, 2014 hearing on plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment is 

vacated; and 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment, ECF No. 12, is denied without 

prejudice. 

Dated: January 6, 2014. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01660-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 3