Shaw v. Garcia

Background

Laurence Jay Shaw, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia, Veronica Rosibel Manzano Garcia, and Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC. Shaw alleges that Garcia and Manzano Garcia were previously employees of his company in Guatemala; that they took online and physical company assets in October 2023; and that they began operating a competing company using counterfeit products. The opinion states that Garcia and Manzano Garcia reside in Guatemala and that Knightsbridge is a New Mexico limited liability company.

The court had previously directed Shaw to serve the individual defendants under the Inter-American Service Convention and Additional Protocol. The court had held Shaw’s temporary restraining-order request in abeyance until proper service occurred. The order addresses Shaw’s request to reissue letters rogatory, Shaw’s motion for default judgment against Knightsbridge, and temporary restraining-order motions filed by Shaw and Garcia.

Letters Rogatory and Service

The court explained that proper service of process is necessary for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant and enforce a judgment against that defendant’s person or property. Garcia had previously challenged personal jurisdiction, but later filed a temporary restraining-order motion, an amended answer, and counterclaims without preserving that challenge. The court held that Garcia’s conduct waived his objections to improper service and personal jurisdiction. It therefore relieved Shaw of the obligation to serve Garcia under the international service procedure.

As to Manzano Garcia, Shaw stated that the forms previously submitted for service were not properly formatted for Guatemalan authorities. The updated forms were substantively the same. The court granted the motion to reissue letters rogatory as to Manzano Garcia and denied it as to Garcia. The clerk was directed to place the court’s signature and seal on the form for Manzano Garcia. Shaw remains responsible for obtaining certified Spanish translations of the case materials.

The court extended Shaw’s deadline to serve Manzano Garcia to December 5, 2025. By that date, Shaw must file proof confirming service under the international service procedure or file a status report explaining the status of his efforts and the additional time needed.

Default Judgment Against Knightsbridge

Shaw sought default judgment against Knightsbridge because the company had not answered the complaint. The court stated that default judgment is discretionary and generally disfavored, and that courts should decide cases on their merits when reasonably possible. Before entering default judgment, a court must examine its subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and determine whether service was proper.

The court found that Knightsbridge had not yet been properly served. Shaw’s proof of service stated that a process server delivered the summons and complaint to a receptionist, Noah Hinojos, at an address associated with Knightsbridge. Garcia was listed as Knightsbridge’s registered agent, but the process server did not serve Garcia directly. The record also did not show that Hinojos was in charge in a way that authorized him to accept service for Garcia. The court therefore denied the motion for default judgment and extended Shaw’s deadline to properly serve Knightsbridge to December 5, 2025.

The court also noted that the current record did not clearly establish personal jurisdiction over Knightsbridge. Shaw asserted that Garcia was Knightsbridge’s sole member and that Knightsbridge was Garcia’s alter ego, meaning an entity so closely connected to a person that the law may treat the person and entity as effectively the same for a particular purpose. The court found that Shaw offered little factual support for those assertions and stated that further factual support would be needed if Shaw continued pursuing the case against Knightsbridge.

Temporary Restraining Orders

Shaw asked the court to order Knightsbridge to return control and ownership of his Google Adwords account and stop using his intellectual property, including the business name “Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions” and the trademark for the “dual band.” The court denied Shaw’s motion because it was not clear that the court had personal jurisdiction over Knightsbridge. The court stated that Shaw could pursue his claims against Garcia now that Garcia had appeared.

Garcia separately sought a temporary restraining order, apparently arguing that Shaw was filing frivolous takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Garcia claimed ownership of the intellectual property at issue, including the “dual band chin strap.” Shaw disputed that claim and accused Garcia of submitting fraudulent copyright registrations. The court denied Garcia’s motion because, on the limited record, it could not find that Garcia was likely to succeed on his counterclaims. The court stated that the parties could litigate their disputed business and intellectual-property issues after Garcia’s appearance and answer.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted in part and denied in part the motion to reissue letters rogatory. The court denied the motion for default judgment against Knightsbridge and denied both temporary restraining-order motions. It extended the service deadlines for Manzano Garcia and Knightsbridge to December 5, 2025, and set a case-management conference for November 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.