Dyer v. DOES 1-10

Opinion

1 2 3 6 MIN JI GOO JI GOO DYER, 7 Case No. 23-cv-01226-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR JOHN DOES 1-10, 10 Re: Dkt. No. 65 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Alternative Service (“Motion”) that contains numerous case 14 citations that appear to be fabricated. In particular, the Court was unable to locate the following 15 cases cited in the Motion on either Pacer and Westlaw using the citations and case numbers cited: 16 • Motion pp. 8, 14, 17: Shinde v. Nithyananda Foundation, No. 20-CV-01958-H- 17 WVG, 2021 WL 533545, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021). 18 • Motion pp. 10, 18: Google LLC v. Abdin, No. 14-cv-02329-BLF, 2023 WL 19 3855882 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2023). 20 • Motion p. 18: Juul Labs, Inc. v. Cheapest Vape Supplies LLC, No. 20-cv-03710- 21 JSC, 2020 WL 5894327 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2020). 22 In addition, the Motion states that in Luxottica Group S.p.A. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated 23 Assocs. Identified on Schedule “A”, 391 F. Supp. 3d 816, 827 (N.D. Ill. 2019), “the court 24 authorized email service on defendants in China” whereas the court in that case did just the 25 opposite, finding that email service on a defendant in China was not proper. 26 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Motion pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules 27 of Civil Procedure. See Grant v. City of Long Beach, 96 F.4th 1255, 1256 (9th Cir. 2024) (striking 1 se status, she will be permitted to file a corrected motion for alternative service. Plaintiff is 2 cautioned, however, that further citation to non-existent cases or mischaracterization of case 3 holdings may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this case. 5 6 Dated: October 21, 2024 , J PH C. SPERO 8 nited States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28