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

Under the Local Rules of this District, defendants’ opposition was due no later than

April 23, 2010. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a) (providing “opposition to a motion must be served and

filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date”).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC, a

Delaware Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARCO VENTURES, INC., a California

Corporation, dba FORD OF MARIN,

Defendants. /

No. C-08-4906 MMC

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF

LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION;

CONTINUING HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, filed April 8, 2010

and noticed for hearing on May 14, 2010. Defendants have not filed a response.1

 Having

read and considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.

Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendants the principal sums owed under two

agreements, along with prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, costs, and additional sums

identified as “charges” and “expenses.” The evidence before the Court is sufficient to

establish plaintiff’s entitlement to recover principal in the amounts sought, specifically,

$1,045,214,94, attorney’s fees in the amount sought, specifically, $27,930.00, and costs in

the amount sought, specifically, $2295.53. With respect to plaintiffs’ asserted entitlement

Case 3:08-cv-04906-MMC Document 57 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 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

2

to charges and expenses, as well as to prejudgment interest, however, plaintiff’s showing is

deficient.

First, to the extent plaintiff seeks an award corresponding to “charges & expenses”

under the Wholesale Agreement (see Bascio Decl. ¶ 28), and to “other charges” under the

Capital Loan (see id. ¶ 32), plaintiff fails to identify the nature of any such charge or

expense, nor does plaintiff state why such charges and expenses are due under the

respective agreements.

Second, to the extent plaintiff seeks an award of prejudgment interest, plaintiff has

not identified the rate(s) used by plaintiff in arriving at the sums requested, nor has plaintiff

provided a declaration setting forth how such amounts were calculated under the

respective agreements.

In light of the above, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on the motion and will afford

plaintiff an opportunity to supplement its motion to address the above-noted deficiencies as

follows:

1. No later than Thursday, May 20, 2010, plaintiff may file a supplemental

memorandum and supplemental declaration(s) for the purpose of (a) identifying the nature

of the claimed charges and expenses and explaining why they are due under the parties’

agreement(s), and (b) identifying the applicable rate(s) of prejudgment interest and

indicating how the amounts sought were calculated.

2. If defendants wish to file a response to any such supplemental showing,

defendants’ response shall be filed no later than Tuesday, June 1, 2010.

3. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion is hereby CONTINUED from May 14, 2010 to

June 11, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04906-MMC Document 57 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 2