Board of Trustees of Laborers Health v. Garrett Thompson Construction, Inc.

          ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT RE: DKT. NO. 21

          KANDIS A. WESTMORE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On December 12, 2019, Plaintiffs Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California, et al. filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 21.) All briefing shall be in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7, including opposition and reply filing deadlines. However, if no opposition is filed by the deadline under Rule 7, Plaintiffs shall instead file a proposed order by the reply deadline. The submission shall be structured as outlined in Attachment A below and include all relevant legal authority and analysis necessary to establish the case. Plaintiffs shall also email the proposed findings in Microsoft Word (.docx) format to kawpo@cand.uscourts.gov. No chambers copies of the proposed order need to be submitted.

         Plaintiffs are ordered to serve this notice upon all other parties in this action.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         ATTACHMENT A

         * * *

         INTRODUCTION

         (Relief sought and disposition.)

         I. BACKGROUND

         (The pertinent factual and procedural background, including citations to the Complaint and record. Plaintiff(s) should be mindful that only facts in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of default judgment; therefore, Plaintiff(s) should cite to the Complaint whenever possible.)

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         (Include the following standard)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court to enter a final judgment in a case following a defendant's default. Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F.Supp.2d 995, 999 (N.D. Cal. 2001). Whether to enter a judgment lies within the court's discretion. Id. at 999 (citing Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986)).

         Before assessing the merits of a default judgment, a court must confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over the parties, as well as ensure the adequacy of service on the defendant. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). If the court finds these elements satisfied, it turns to the following ...