10-cv-04673 JSW (NC)REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATION
3entered default as to Retro Invent on May 26, 2011, and as to Pedersen on June 1, 2011. Dkt. Nos. 23, 28, Clerk’s Entry of Default.Facebook now moves for the entry of default judgment against defendants, an award of $80,067.42 in attorneys’ fees and $13,294.49 in litigation costs, a permanent injunction barringdefendants from using Facebook’s registered “Facebook” and “Wall” marks, and the transfer of www.faceporn.com, www.faceporn.net, and www.faceporn.org to Facebook.
at 1-2, 22.Facebook served notice of its motion for default judgement on defendants.
at 2.The Court ordered Facebook to show cause why it should not recommend to the DistrictCourt that this action be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 46, Order to ShowCause (“OSC”). In its response to the order to show cause, Facebook argues that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants is proper because defendants “specifically targeted a forumresident for competition.” Dkt. No. 47, Facebook’s Resp. to OSC at 1.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“[D]efault judgments are generally disfavored. Whenever it is reasonably possible, casesshould be decided upon their merits.”
Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A.
, 770 F.2d 811, 814(9th Cir. 1985). After the clerk enters a defendant’s default, a court must take “the well-pleadedfactual allegations” in the complaint “as true.”
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh
, 503 F.3d 847, 854(9th Cir. 2007). However, the “defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.”
In determining whether to enter a default judgment, a court “may dismiss an action
for lack of personal jurisdiction,” because a “judgment entered without personal jurisdiction over the parties is void.”
, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (citationsomitted). A court, however, must provide to a plaintiff the opportunity to assert facts to establishthat the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper before dismissingan action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendantis proper, a district court must apply the law of the state in which it sits when there is no
Case3:10-cv-04673-JSW Document49 Filed03/02/12 Page3 of 10