Luis Cabrera and Everett Cabrera v. Vicion Group, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01822
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Luis Cabrera and Everett Cabrera, Case No. 2:25-cv-01822-CDS-DJA

4 Plaintiffs Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 5 v.

6 Vicion Group, et al., [ECF No. 8] 7 Defendants

8 9 Plaintiffs Luis Cabrera and Everett Cabrera seek entry of a default judgment against 10 Vicion Group, Vicion Power Inc., Vicion Power Real Estate Inc., Gabriel Garcia, and Gloria 11 Sandoval. Mot., ECF No. 8. Because proper service has not yet been effectuated, the plaintiffs’ 12 motion is denied.1 13 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff has the burden to establish that he 14 properly and timely effectuated service of process upon a defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) 15 (“The plaintiff is responsible for service of a summons and complaint within the time allowed 16 under subdivision (m)”). “Service of process” is the legal term describing a formal delivery of 17 documents giving the defendant notice of a pending lawsuit. R. Griggs Group Ltd. v. Filanto Spa, 920 18 F. Supp. 1100, 1103 (D. Nev. 1996) (citing Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 19 (1988)). “Service of process is the means by which a court asserts jurisdiction over the person.” 20 Neumont Univ., LLC v. Nickles, 304 F.R.D. 594, 597 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 21 1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 2007)). Once a defendant has been served with a summons and complaint, 22 then their time to respond begins to run. However, if a defendant has not been served “there is 23

24 1 Although the plaintiffs address the Eitel v. McCool factors, entry of default under Rule 55 is a two-step process. See Eitel, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that Rule 55 requires a two-step process). 25 The first step, entry of default, is a ministerial matter performed by the clerk and is a prerequisite to a later default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After default is properly entered, a party seeking relief 26 other than a sum certain must apply to the court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). 1/no personal jurisdiction.” Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Beecher v. Wallace, 381 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1967). 3 The plaintiffs initiated this action on September 26, 2025. Compl., ECF No. 1. Under 4|| Rule 4(m), the plaintiffs had until December 26, 2025, to serve the defendants with the 5]}summons and complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring service within 90 days after the complaint is filed). On December 29, 2025, the court issued a notice of intent to dismiss under 7|| Rule 4(m). Notice, ECF No. 7. That notice informed the plaintiffs that they had not filed proof of 8|| service for the defendants. Id. It further warned them that it would dismiss the action “unless proof of service is filed with the clerk by 01/28/2026.” Id. 10 Because it appears that the plaintiffs have not yet met the requirements for serving the defendants, they are under no obligation to respond, and entry of default is improper. Therefore, 12|| the plaintiffs’ motion is denied. Although the deadline to file proof of service has expired, I will 13]| give the plaintiff one last opportunity to comply. If the plaintiffs properly served the defendants, 14] they must file proof of service by February 9, 2026. If they fail to do so, then this action will be 15|| dismissed without prejudice. 16}| IL. Conclusion 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment [ECF 18|| No. 8] is DENIED. The plaintiffs must file proof of service by February 9, 2026.’ Failure to 19] comply by that date will result in the dismissal of this actiqut without prejudice and without 20] further notice. /, / 21 Dated: January 30, 2026 LL 22 23 G Lg ined States District Judge 24 25 26]|2 Service on the party must have taken place prior to the expiration of the time limit set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), or good cause must be shown as to why such service was not made in that period.