United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT RE: DKT. NO. 13
M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge.
1, 2016, Plaintiff IntelePeer Cloud Communications, LLC
(“IntelePeer”) filed a motion for default
judgment. [Docket No. 13.] After reviewing the motion, the
court requested supplemental briefing, which Plaintiff timely
filed. [Docket Nos. 16, 18.] The court now requests
additional briefing on four points.
Plaintiff requests that the court award attorneys’ fees
for work by counsel, Erik Cecil, who is not licensed to
practice in the State of California, not admitted to practice
before this court, and has not applied to appear pro hac
vice. See Cecil Decl. [Docket No. 13-3] at
¶ 2. Plaintiff shall provide supplemental briefing on
whether the court may award attorneys’ fees for work
performed by an attorney not admitted to practice in this
court nor admitted pro hac vice.
the court requests supplemental briefing to support the
Plaintiff’s request for contract 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 Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d
915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)).
requests nearly two-hundred thousand dollars in total
contractual liability. MDJ at 3; see also Stachowicz
Decl. [Docket No. 13-1] at ¶ 2. The court previously
requested further explanation for a $40, 000 charge dated
April 1, 2016. [Docket No. 160.] In response, Plaintiff
stated that the $40, 000 charge was for “additional
amounts due as a result of termination of the contract per
the MSA . . .” that was “calculated as the
Minimum Commitment remaining in the Commitment Term after the
termination of the Agreement, in addition to all unpaid
amounts . . .” Suppl. Br. at 5-6. However, the Master
Services Agreement (“MSA”) was entered into on
July 1, 2015 and the Commitment Term expired June 30, 2016.
Stachowicz Decl. in Supp. of Suppl. Br. (“Stachowicz
Suppl. Decl.”) [Docket No. 18-3] at ¶¶ 1, 3.
Given that there is a March 1, 2016 charge of $10, 000 MSG,
with taxes and fees, the remaining months of the Commitment
Term would be April 2016, May 2016, and June 2016 for a total
of three months remaining, or $30, 000 MSG. Plaintiff shall
submit an explanation for their request of $40, 000, as it
appears there are only more three months in the remaining
Plaintiff requests “interest” pursuant to section
4.4 of the MSA. See MDJ at 11; Stachowicz Decl.
[Docket No. 13] at ¶ 3. Section 4.4 of the MSA provides
for the imposition of “a late payment charge on amounts
not paid . . . in the amount of one and one-half percent
(1.5%) per month compounded monthly.” Compl. Ex. 1
(MSA) § 4.4. Plaintiff shall clarify whether the
“interest” they are requesting for May and June
2016 is in fact late fees on the unpaid invoices.
Plaintiff’s request for “interest” is
assessed on both the unpaid invoices as well as the April 1,
2016 charge, which Plaintiff describes as an Early
Termination Fee. See Suppl. Br. at 5-6; Stachowicz
Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 2-4. Plaintiff shall provide
briefing, including citations to the MSA, explaining whether
the late payment charge may properly be assessed on the Early
court requests that the Plaintiff submit an updated
Stachowicz Declaration or other clear statement setting forth
an itemized calculation for its total request for
damages that accounts for the aforementioned issues as well
as discrepancies that appear to be typographical
errors and miscalculations in Plaintiffs
request for damages. Plaintiff shall submit additional
briefing by July 15, 2016 to address the above deficiencies
in the motion for default judgment. Any opposition or
statement of non-opposition is due no later than July 20,
upon receipt of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve Defendant
with a copy of this Order and file a proof of service with
 Plaintiff requests contractual
liability of $187, 979.01 in one location, but $187, 797.01
elsewhere. See MDJ at 2-3, 10; Stachowicz Decl. at
¶ 2; Reply in the Form of Proposed Order
(“Reply”) [Docket No. 19] at 3, 12. Plaintiff
requests total damages in the amount of $208, 626.73 in one
location, but $208, 262.73 elsewhere. See MDJ at 3,
13; Reply at 3, 16.
 Plaintiff’s total damages
request appears to be based on the sum of contractual
liability of $187, 797.01, interest of $5, 676.17, filing
fees and costs of $609.55, and attorneys’ fees of $14,
180.50. The sum ...