Facebook, Inc. v. OnLineNic Inc

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FACEBOOK, INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-07071-SI

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: DEFAULT 9 v.

10 ONLINENIC INC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 This Order should be read in conjunction with Judge van Keulen’s report and 14 recommendation (Dkt. No. 225) and this Court’s order on the motions for de novo review of Judge 15 van Keulen’s report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 276). 16 On October 17, 2022, this Court adopted Judge van Keulen’s report and recommendation 17 (Dkt. No. 225), with the exception that it deferred ruling on the question of whether to enter default 18 judgment against defendants OnLineNIC and ID Shield, pending further briefing. Dkt. No. 276. 19 The Court is in receipt of the parties’ briefs (Dkt. Nos. 277, 278, 279) and finds good cause to defer 20 entry of default judgment pending resolution of this case against defendant Xiamen 35.com 21 Technology Co., Ltd. (“35.CN.”). 22 “[W]hen multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to 23 one or more, but fewer than all, . . . parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no 24 just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Whether to make that express determination is a matter 25 “exclusively within the discretion of the district court.” Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Brunsing, 378 26 F.2d 234, 236 (9th Cir. 1967). “[I]n deciding whether there are no just reasons to delay the appeal 27 of individual final judgments . . ., a district court must take into account judicial administrative 1 (1980). 2 The Court declines to exercise its discretion to enter default judgment against OnLineNIC 3 and ID Shield at this time. Because plaintiffs allege that 35.CN is an alter ego of the other 4 || defendants, the Court disagrees with plaintiffs’ assertion that entry of final judgment against the first 5 two defendants could not result in piecemeal appeals of the same issues. Thus, judicial 6 administrative interests weigh against entering default judgment now. The Court is persuaded by 7 the cases that 35.CN cited and finds that delay of entry of default judgment is the more prudent 8 course. See, e.g., TPOV Enters. 16, LLC v. Paris Las Vegas Operating Co., No. 2:17-CV-346 JCM 9 || (VCR), 2021 WL 665101, at *3-4 (D. Nev. Feb. 19, 2021) (finding that entry of default judgment 10 after terminating sanctions were granted as to some but not all defendants was premature because 11 the defendants were “similarly situated”) (citing Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872); In 12 || re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001)). 5 13 Accordingly, the Court clarifies that Judge van Keulen’s report and recommendation (Dkt. 14 || No. 225) is adopted, with the exception of Section IV (“Relief”), which the Court declines to adopt 3 15 at this time. The Clerk shall enter default — but not default judgment — against defendants a 16 || OnlineNIC and ID Shield. 3 17 In conjunction with the Order issued October 17, 2022, at Dkt. No. 276, this Order resolves 18 || plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answer and for default judgment against defendants 19 OnlineNIC and ID Shield, Dkt. Nos. 117, 176. 20 The Court sets a case management conference (to be held via Zoom) for Friday, 21 February 3, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. Plaintiffs and 35.CN shall file a joint case management 22 statement by January 27, 2023. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 16, 2022 26 Adup | LY pee 7 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 28