Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 22 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID 314
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No: 6:16-cv-680-Orl-37GJK
`
`LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP
`CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING
`COMPANY LIMITED,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed
`
`herein:
`
`MOTION: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 17)
`
`FILED:
`
`August 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
`
`On August 12, 2016, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause as to why the Clerk’s entry
`
`of default against the Defendant should not be set aside. Doc. No. 20. Separate and apart from
`
`any resolution of those issues, the Plaintiff’s August 10, 2016 Motion for Default Judgment (the
`
`“Motion”) will be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”)
`
`against Defendant, alleging direct infringement of numerous claims belonging to three separate
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 22 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID 315
`
`patents. Doc. No. 13 at 1-8. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages,
`
`pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest. Doc. No. 13 at 7-8.
`
`On August 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a three (3) page Motion for Default Judgment (the
`
`“Motion”), as well as a separate memorandum of legal authority and an affidavit in support of the
`
`Motion. Doc. Nos. 17-19; see also Doc. No. 20 (order to show cause explaining procedural
`
`history of case). The Motion, after detailing the events that led to the Clerk entering default
`
`against the Defendant, simply states in conclusory fashion that Defendant is entitled to default
`
`judgment, permanent injunctive relief, and a wholly unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment
`
`interest, and post-judgment interest. Doc. No. 17 at 1-2. Similarly, the Plaintiff’s four (4) page
`
`memorandum of legal authority simply states that all of its well-pled allegations should be
`
`accepted as true, and the Court should enter a judgment against Defendant, awarding Plaintiff a
`
`permanent injunction or royalties against future infringement, an unspecified amount of damages,
`
`pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest. Doc. No. 18 at 4. Finally, the affidavit filed
`
`in support of the Motion only avers that Defendant has failed to timely respond to the Amended
`
`Complaint. Doc. No. 19.
`
` Before entering default judgment, the Court must ensure that it has jurisdiction over the
`
`claims and parties, and that the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint, which are assumed
`
`to be true, adequately state a claim for which relief may be granted. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v.
`
`Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975) (“The defendant is not held to admit
`
`facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.”).1 Complaints need not contain
`
`detailed factual allegations, but there must be “more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully
`
`
`
` 1
`
` In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as
`binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September
`30, 1981.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 22 Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID 316
`
`harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading that offers
`
`‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
`
`do.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Thus, when
`
`seeking a default judgment, a plaintiff should provide the Court with points and containing
`
`citations to authority showing that the Plaintiff’s claim or claims include allegations of all the
`
`necessary elements required for entitlement to relief.” Johnson v. Cate, 2009 WL 2151370, at *2
`
`(E.D. Cal. July 17, 2009). In short, it is the Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate, in a motion for
`
`default judgment, that its pleading’s factual allegations are legally sufficient to establish one or
`
`more of its claims and to entitle it to the specific relief requested. Id.
`
`The Motion and supporting documents fail to demonstrate that the Plaintiff’s factual
`
`allegations entitle it to a default judgment as to any of the infringement claims in the Amended
`
`Complaint, and they do not even make a veiled attempt to demonstrate they have suffered any
`
`damages or the amount thereof. Doc. Nos. 17-19; see Wallace v. The Kiwi Grp., Inc., 247 F.R.D.
`
`679, 681 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that he or she is entitled to
`
`recover the amount of damages sought in the motion for default judgment). Moreover, the Motion
`
`does not request a hearing or otherwise attempt to quantify the amount of actual damages prior to
`
`the entry of judgment, all of which causes the Court to question whether the Plaintiff’s claim for
`
`damages is well-founded. Nevertheless, on this record, Plaintiff is not entitled to a default
`
`judgment.
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Motion (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-00680-RBD-GJK Document 22 Filed 08/12/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID 317
`
`DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 12, 2016.
`
`
`Copies furnished to:
`
`Counsel of Record
`Unrepresented Parties
`
`
`
`- 4 -