WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-07123
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In WhatsApp v. NSO Group, Judge Hamilton granted in part and denied in part defendants’ request to set aside default and denied alternative service.
NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited had the default set aside but were not granted a 120-day extension to respond. WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook, Inc. were denied alternative service after completing service under the Hague Convention.
What happened
WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook, Inc. sued NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited over alleged computer-related misconduct, contract breach, and trespass to chattels. The clerk entered default after plaintiffs attempted to serve the Israeli defendants.
The defendants asked the court to set aside the default and give them 120 additional days to respond. Plaintiffs agreed that the default should be set aside and asked for permission to serve the defendants by an alternative method, but later withdrew that request after completing service under the Hague Convention.
Judge Hamilton granted the request to set aside the default, denied the request for 120 additional days, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service. The court stated that service was effective on March 12, 2020, and did not decide a pending sanctions motion.
The detailed version
- WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited · No. 4:19-cv-07123
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 25, 2020
Background
WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook, Inc. brought claims against NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, for breach of contract, and for trespass to chattels. The plaintiffs attempted service through several methods under the Hague Convention. They believed they had properly served the defendants, and the clerk entered default on March 2, 2020.
Motions
The defendants moved to set aside the default, arguing that service under the Hague Convention had been improper. They also asked for 120 additional days to respond to the pleadings. The plaintiffs did not oppose setting aside the default. Their filing also asked for alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).
After the alternative-service request was filed, the plaintiffs re-served the defendants under the Hague Convention on March 12,
- The Israeli Central Authority issued formal certificates of service on March 16,
- The parties agreed that service had been completed but disputed whether its effective date was March 12 or March
- The court concluded that the certificates showed the defendants received the documents constituting service on March 12,
- Because the defendants had not waived service, their response was generally due 21 days after that date. The court said the parties could submit an agreement about a reasonable response date but was not inclined to grant a 120-day extension.
Ruling
The order’s heading states that the motion to set aside default judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The court’s specific ruling was to grant the defendants’ motion to set aside default and deny their motion to enlarge the time to respond. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service because they had moved to withdraw it after completing service under the Hague Convention. The order did not address the defendants’ pending sanctions motion. The hearing previously scheduled for April 16, 2020 was vacated.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.