Tongsui LLC v. LeCocoLove LLC
- Donna Ryu
- 4:21-cv-02806
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Tongsui LLC v. LeCocoLove LLC, Judge Ryu denied default and related motions, required defendants to respond, and denied jurisdictional discovery.
Tongsui LLC and the other plaintiffs, and LeCocoLove LLC and the other defendants; the defendants were ordered to file a jurisdictional motion or responsive pleading by September 29, 2021.
What happened
In Tongsui LLC v. LeCocoLove LLC, the court addressed several filings after plaintiffs amended their complaint to add allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction. Defendants did not timely file an answer or challenge the amended complaint because their lawyer mistakenly believed the amended complaint had to be served directly on the defendants rather than on their lawyer.
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to enter defendants’ default and denied as moot plaintiffs’ request to compel an answer or enter default. It also denied defendants’ request for limited jurisdictional discovery and denied plaintiffs’ request to strike that motion and impose sanctions. The court ordered defendants to file either a jurisdictional challenge or an answer with any defenses and counterclaims by September 29, 2021.
Judge Ryu warned the parties to follow the court’s deadlines and applicable rules, stating that future violations could lead to sanctions. The order did not decide the pending jurisdictional question or the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.
The detailed version
- Tongsui LLC v. LeCocoLove LLC · No. 4:21-cv-02806
- Donna Ryu
- Sept. 22, 2021
Background
The court had previously directed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint adding allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed that amended complaint electronically on August 5, 2021, and the filing was properly served on defendants’ counsel through the electronic filing system. Under the applicable rules, defendants’ response was due August 19, 2021.
Defendants did not file a response by that deadline. The opinion states that defense counsel apparently believed plaintiffs had to serve the defendants themselves rather than defense counsel. The resulting filings included plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default, plaintiffs’ administrative motion to compel an answer or entry of default, defendants’ motion for 14 days of limited jurisdictional discovery followed by a responsive pleading, and plaintiffs’ administrative motion to strike that discovery motion and seek sanctions.
Rulings
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for entry of defendants’ default. It relied on the Ninth Circuit’s instruction that default judgment is a drastic measure appropriate only in extreme circumstances and that cases should generally be decided on their merits.
The court denied as moot plaintiffs’ administrative motion to compel defendants to file an answer or to enter default. The court also denied defendants’ motion for 14 days of limited jurisdictional discovery and a later responsive pleading because the motion lacked factual or legal support. Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to strike that motion and seek sanctions was denied.
The court ordered defendants to file either a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion challenging the amended complaint’s subject-matter jurisdiction or an answer to the amended complaint, including any affirmative defenses and counterclaims, by September 29, 2021. The order stated that any such motion had to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-2 and cite applicable legal authority.
Effect of the Order
The order did not resolve whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction or decide the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. It directed the parties to comply with applicable federal and local rules and warned that failure to comply with the order or other court orders could result in sanctions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.