United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 21)
J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for entry of
default judgment against Defendant Specialty Meats and
Gourmet LLC. Docket No. 21. On January 9, 2017, a Clerk's
entry of default was entered as to Defendant. Docket No. 20.
Once default has been entered, a plaintiff may apply to the
Court for entry of default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). Whether to enter default
judgment is at the sole discretion of the district court.
See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.
preliminary matter, default judgment is void if a court lacks
personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Pac. Atl.
Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331
(9th Cir. 1985). The Court has a duty to examine its
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties when
default judgment is sought for failure to plead or otherwise
defend. Tuli v. Republic of Iraq, 172 F.3d 707, 712
(9th Cir. 1998). The Court may therefore raise the issue of
personal jurisdiction sua sponte. Id.
Court is not persuaded, based on the facts before it, that it
has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. See Docket
No. 1. See also J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro,
564 U.S. 873, 881 (2011) (consent to personal jurisdiction
requires circumstances or conduct evincing “an
intention to benefit from and thus an intention to submit to
the laws of the forum State”); Evanston Ins. Co. v.
W. Cmty. Ins. Co., 13 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068-69 (D. Nev.
2014) (discussing personal jurisdiction standards at length).
Plaintiff must first demonstrate that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendant, in order for the Court to grant
a motion for default judgment. See Tuli, 172 F.3d at
Plaintiff is able to demonstrate that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendant, however, a defendant's
default alone does not entitle a plaintiff to a court-ordered
judgment. See Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1092. Rather, a
court should look at seven discretionary factors before
rendering a decision on default judgment. See Eitel v.
McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). These
factors are: (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 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. Id. In applying these
Eitel factors, “the factual allegations of the
complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages,
will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin.
Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); Televideo
Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir.
1987). Plaintiff's pending motion fails to address the
Eitel factors, much less demonstrate that they have
been met. See Docket No. 21.
plaintiff seeking default judgment also has the burden of
providing sufficient proof of his damages. See NewGen,
LLC v. Safe Cig, 840 F.3d 606, 617 (9th Cir. 2016)
(finding that district court's calculation of damages was
proper where it relied upon extensive evidence provided by
the plaintiff); Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560; Holiday
Sys. Int'l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Schwarz &
Assocs., No. 2:10-cv-00471-MMD-GWF, 2014 WL 204340, at
*2 (D. Nev. Jan. 17, 2014 (finding damages requested
appropriate based on evidence presented); AT&T Corp.
v. Innocom Telecom LLC, No. C-06-05400 EDL, 2007 WL
163193, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2007) (“Rule 55(b)(2)
allows, but does not require, the court to conduct a hearing
on damages, as long as it ensures that there is an
evidentiary basis for the damages awarded in the default
judgment”). Plaintiffs pending motion seeks over 2
million dollars in damages, but provides no more than
conclusory assertions to support an award in that amount.
See Docket No. 21. Similarly, Plaintiff fails to
identify the nature of the damages sought or the precise
injury that Plaintiff asserts was incurred as a result of
Defendant's alleged conduct. See id.
Plaintiffs motion for entry of default judgment against
Defendant Specialty Meats and Gourmet LLC, Docket No. 21, is
hereby DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed
motion for entry of default judgment shall address whether
the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, address
the Eitel factors, include appropriate evidentiary