Balkrishna Setty, et al. v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE BALKRISHNA SETTY, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. C17-1146-MLP 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SHRINIVAS SUGANDHALAYA LLP, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Mot. (dkt. # 278)) together with supporting documents (dkt. ## 283-85). The Court finds Plaintiffs’ submissions deficient for several reasons.

First, Plaintiffs fail to specify which claims they seek judgment on. Although Plaintiffs brought nine claims against Defendant (see dkt. # 163), the Motion mentions only two: Lanham Act and Washington Consumer Protection Act claims. (See Mot.) Plaintiffs must clarify the claims relied upon and demonstrate that the Amended Complaint’s allegations satisfy each element. See Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1211 (W.D. Wash. 2014); see also Advanced Hair Restoration LLC v. Parsa Mohebi, M.D., Inc., 2025 WL 2242549, at *3-4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2025) (on default judgment motion, assessing “the merit of [plaintiff’s] various claims and the sufficiency of the Complaint in supporting those claims”).

3 Second, it appears Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidentiary support for the damages claimed. The amount of damages awarded on default judgment must be reasonable and supported by evidence; allegations are insufficient. Curtis, 33 F. Supp. 3d at 1211; see also Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. United States, 323 7 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)) (“The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.”). Plaintiffs submitted an expert report by two Certified Public Accountants who calculated lost profits based on “the implicit assumption that an infringing sale made by [Defendant] would have gone to [Plaintiffs] at the same sale price[.]” (Hodges Decl. (dkt. # 288), ¶ 9, Ex. 2 (dkt. # 286), ¶ 21.)

12 This assumption appears unsupported by legal support, expert opinion, or underlying evidence.

13 Finally, Plaintiffs are reminded to provide a proposed order with their Motion. See W.D.

14 Wash. Local Rules LCR 7(b)(1).

15 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause by November 21, 2025, why the Motion should not be denied. Plaintiffs may submit additional briefing and, if necessary, expert evidence. The Clerk is directed to renote Plaintiffs’ Motion (dkt. # 278) for November 21, 2025.

19 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025.

A 21 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge