Choudhuri v. Specialized Loan Servicing
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-06993
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Choudhuri v. Specialised Loan Servicing, Judge Tigar denied default judgment against Bosco Credit because service was ineffective and ordered proper service or an explanation.
Kabita Choudhuri and Bosco Credit LLC; the order denied Choudhuri’s request for default against Bosco and set deadlines concerning service.
What happened
In Choudhuri v. Specialised Loan Servicing, Kabita Choudhuri asked the court to enter default against Bosco Credit LLC. The court found no evidence that Bosco had been properly served with the summons and second amended complaint.
Choudhuri submitted evidence that the complaint was sent to Bosco by mail and email. The court explained that service by mail under California law requires Bosco’s written acknowledgment of receipt, such as a signed waiver, and that email service was also ineffective.
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the motion for entry of default against Bosco. He ordered Choudhuri either to properly serve Bosco by February 5, 2024, or explain why Bosco should not be dismissed for failure to serve; if service did not occur, a written response was due February 20, 2024, with a hearing set for May 14, 2024.
The detailed version
- Choudhuri v. Specialized Loan Servicing · No. 4:22-cv-06993
- Jon Tigar
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
The second amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2023. The docket did not show that Defendant Bosco Credit LLC had been served. Kabita Choudhuri submitted a declaration stating that the complaint had been sent to Bosco by mail and email at an address in Jersey City, New Jersey.
Choudhuri moved for entry of default against Bosco. A default is a court action that can follow a defendant’s failure to respond after proper service.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that the attempted service was not effective. Under the California service rule applicable through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), service by mail is complete only when the recipient signs and returns a written acknowledgment of receipt. The court noted that no such acknowledgment from Bosco had been submitted. The attempted email service was also ineffective.
Because Bosco had not been validly served, the court denied the motion for entry of default against Bosco.
Ruling and next steps
The court ordered Choudhuri either to properly serve Bosco or to show cause—that is, explain why Bosco should not be dismissed for failure to serve. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a defendant generally must be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the delay.
The court required Choudhuri to serve Bosco by February 5, 2024, or, if service had not occurred by then, file a written response by February 20, 2024. The court set a show-cause hearing for May 14, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. The order did not dismiss Bosco.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.