Gregori v. Mara Investment Group LLC
- Donna Ryu
- 3:21-cv-00959
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gregori v. Mara Investment Group, Judge Ryu ordered supplemental briefing and evidence on personal jurisdiction before deciding plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion.
Plaintiffs Gilbert J. Gregori and Robie Tenorio must provide additional briefing and evidence concerning personal jurisdiction over defendants Mara Investment Group LLC, Mara Investment Management LP, and Justin Murphy.
What happened
In Gregori v. Mara Investment Group LLC, plaintiffs Gilbert J. Gregori and Robie Tenorio asked the court to enter judgment because the defendants had not responded. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that it could exercise authority over the defendants.
The plaintiffs must submit separate briefing and supporting evidence for Mara Investment Group LLC, Mara Investment Management LP, and Justin Murphy by June 20, 2023. Any opposition or statement that the motion is not opposed is due by June 27, 2023, and the plaintiffs must immediately serve the order on the defendants and file proof of service.
The court did not yet decide the default-judgment motion; it will consider setting a hearing after reviewing the additional materials. Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu issued the order.
The detailed version
- Gregori v. Mara Investment Group LLC · No. 3:21-cv-00959
- Donna Ryu
- June 6, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs Gilbert J. Gregori and Robie Tenorio filed a motion for default judgment on November 4, 2022. The motion was referred to Judge Ryu for a report and recommendation on May 2, 2023.
Court’s Concern
Before considering default judgment, the court must confirm subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over the parties, and adequate service. The court determined that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient legal or evidentiary support showing personal jurisdiction over defendants Mara Investment Group LLC, Mara Investment Management LP, and Justin Murphy.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit additional briefing and supporting evidence by June 20, 2023, addressing personal jurisdiction separately for each of the three defendants. Any opposition or statement of non-opposition is due by June 27, 2023. The court stated that it would set a hearing on the default-judgment motion after reviewing the additional briefing.
The plaintiffs must also immediately serve each defendant with a copy of the order and file proof of service. The order does not decide the motion for default judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.