U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
3Case No. 5:10-cv-04264 EJD (HRL)ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (EJDLC1)
dismissed defendants “John Doe” Simon and Joey Patron. See Docket Item No. 45. DefendantsWyant, Gavin, and Odell failed to respond after being served with the action. The clerk enteredtheir defaults on February 2nd and February 9, 2011. See Docket Item Nos. 35, 40, 41. The instantMotion followed on March 31, 2011, (see Docket Item No. 44) and was re-noticed on May 6, 2011.See Docket Item No. 53.
II. DISCUSSIONA.Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), the court may enter default judgmentagainst a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend an action. “The district court’sdecision whether to enter default judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The Ninth Circuit has provided seven factors for consideration by thedistrict court in exercising its discretion to enter default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice tothe 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 dispute concerning material facts; (6)whether default was due to excusable neglect and; (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9thCir. 1986). When assessing these factors, all factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true,except those with regard to damages. Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9thCir. 1987).
Courts have an affirmative duty to examine their own jurisdiction - both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction - when entry of judgment is sought against a party in default.In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). The court does so below.
1.Subject Matter Jurisdiction
District courts have original jurisdiction to hear civil actions where the matter involvescitizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 75,000,exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, there is complete diversity betweenGoogle and each of the Defendants. FAC at ¶¶ 1-7. Also, the amount in controversy exceeds
Case5:10-cv-04264-EJD Document59 Filed07/28/11 Page3 of 10