Penson & Company, LLC v. Cloudstyle Store
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-05174
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Penson & Company v. Cloudstyle Store, Judge Tigar ordered a default-judgment motion and explanations for uncompleted service.
Penson & Company, LLC must seek default judgment against Cloudstyle Store and explain its efforts to serve the remaining defendants. The remaining unserved defendants could be affected by a later dismissal, but this order does not dismiss them.
What happened
In Penson & Company, LLC v. Cloudstyle Store, the plaintiff had obtained an entry of default against Cloudstyle Store on September 29, 2020. The court ordered the plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment against that defendant by December 4, 2020.
The court also ordered the plaintiff to explain why the remaining defendants should not be dismissed for failure to serve them on time. The plaintiff's written response was due November 20, 2020, and the plaintiff was told to describe its service efforts and plans if it opposed dismissal. The plaintiff had reported that the remaining defendants were in China and had not been served.
Judge Jon S. Tigar continued the case management conference from November 3 to December 1, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., and scheduled the hearing on the service order for the same time. The opinion does not itself dismiss the remaining defendants.
The detailed version
- Penson & Company, LLC v. Cloudstyle Store · No. 4:20-cv-05174
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 2, 2020
Background
Penson & Company, LLC had obtained an entry of default against Cloudstyle Store on September 29, 2020. An entry of default is a formal court entry made when a defendant has not responded as required. The court ordered Penson to file a motion seeking default judgment against Cloudstyle Store by December 4, 2020.
The case also included remaining defendants who had not been served. Penson's most recent case management statement said that those defendants had not been served because they were located in China. The court noted that service in China could be made through China's designated authority under the Hague Convention referenced in the opinion.
Court's Orders
The court ordered Penson to show cause—meaning to explain—why the remaining unserved defendants should not be dismissed for failure to complete service on time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). If Penson opposed dismissal, its written response had to describe its efforts to complete service and its plan for doing so. That response was due November 20, 2020.
The court scheduled a hearing on the service order for December 1, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. It also continued the case management conference from November 3 to December 1, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., and stated that an updated case management statement was not required. The opinion does not state that the remaining defendants were dismissed or that default judgment was entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.