Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Judang Team LLC, et al.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-05156
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Meta Platforms v. Judang Team, Judge Hixson ordered counsel to explain why they should not face contempt and sanctions for failing to serve Judang.
Attorneys James C. Huber, Bradley C. Crosley, and Darren Cruz must respond to the court’s order to show cause. Judang Team LLC is affected because the order concerns service of court filings on Judang.
What happened
Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Judang Team LLC, et al. concerns Meta’s allegations that the defendants operated deceptive advertising on Meta’s platforms and improperly obtained advertising credit lines. The order focuses on whether attorneys followed the court’s instructions to serve Judang with filed documents after withdrawing as counsel.
The court had twice reminded counsel to serve Judang, including with an answer, a default order, and other filings. Counsel did not file the required proof that Judang had been served with several documents, even though the court had imposed that service obligation.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered James C. Huber, Bradley C. Crosley, and Darren Cruz to file a written response explaining why they should not be held in contempt and sanctioned. The response is due March 10, 2026, and the order warns that failing to respond may result in sanctions.
The detailed version
- Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Judang Team LLC, et al. · No. 3:25-cv-05156
- Thomas Hixson
- Mar. 3, 2026
Background
Meta Platforms, Inc. sued Judang Team LLC, Perfeos LLC, Jot & Journeys, and Antonio Jose Liévano. Meta alleges that the defendants operated a deceptive and misleading advertising scheme on Meta’s social media platforms and improperly obtained advertising credit lines from Meta.
On January 20, 2026, the court granted counsel’s request to withdraw as counsel for all defendants, but required counsel to remain attorneys of record for serving filed documents on the defendants until replacement counsel appeared. The court also required counsel to electronically file proof of service within three business days after filing documents.
Perfeos, Jot & Journeys, and Liévano later filed an answer through new counsel. No new counsel appeared for Judang. Counsel did not timely serve Judang with the answer. The court reminded counsel of the service obligation and ordered service by February 19, 2026. Counsel later filed an affidavit stating that service had been made on Perfeos, but did not file the required attestations showing service on Judang of several other documents, including the order entering default against Judang.
Order to Show Cause
The court explained that civil contempt can result from disobeying a specific and definite court order despite taking less than all reasonable steps within the person’s power to comply. The court also explained that civil contempt sanctions may be used either to force compliance or to compensate for losses. Coercive sanctions can include conditional monetary fines for each day of noncompliance.
The court found that counsel had been ordered twice to comply with the service requirement and continued not to timely serve Judang. It ordered James C. Huber, Bradley C. Crosley, and Darren Cruz to show cause—meaning to explain in writing—why they should not be held in contempt of the court’s orders and sanctioned for failing to comply with their service obligations.
Disposition
The court ordered counsel to file a written response by March 10, 2026. It warned that failure to respond may result in sanctions. The order does not itself hold counsel in contempt or impose sanctions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.