Tongsui LLC v. LeCocoLove LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TONGSUI LLC, et al., Case No. 21-cv-02806-DMR

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING ENTRY OF 9 v. DEFAULT AND RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS 10 LECOCOLOVE LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 48, 50, 51, 52 11 Defendants.

12 On August 4, 2021, the court issued an order on six outstanding motions, including 13 Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Docket No. 46 (Aug. 4, 14 2021 Order).] The court described the parties’ filings as “chaotic” and noted that they had 15 “unnecessarily complicated the court’s review of the motions as well as its ability to manage the 16 docket.” Id. at 1, 2. In relevant part, in response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs’ 17 counsel filed a declaration in which he represented that this court likely has diversity jurisdiction 18 over this matter. As a result, the court ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by no later 19 than August 18, 2021 that solely adds allegations supporting the existence of diversity jurisdiction. 20 Id. at 2. The court also ordered Defendants to file either an answer to the amended complaint or a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion challenging Plaintiffs’ amended complaint within 21 the time limits set by that rule. Id. at 3. 22 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on ECF on August 5, 2021. [Docket No. 47.] The 23 amended complaint was properly served on defense counsel via ECF. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a), 24 5(b)(1) (providing that service of “a pleading filed after the original complaint . . . must be made 25 on the attorney unless the court orders service on the party”); Civ. L.R. 5-1(h)(1) (describing 26 service of electronically filed documents). Therefore, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(3), Defendants’ 27 1 August 19, 2021. Defendants did not file a responsive pleading by that deadline, apparently 2 because counsel erroneously believed that Plaintiffs were required to serve the Defendants 3 themselves, instead of defense counsel. [Docket No. 49.] This led to another cascade of filings 4 that have again clogged the docket and unnecessarily consumed judicial resources. [Docket Nos. 5 50-54.] 6 The Ninth Circuit has instructed that “judgment by default is a drastic step appropriate 7 only in extreme circumstances; a case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits.” 8 United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of Defendants’ default is denied. [Docket No. 9 48.] Plaintiffs’ “administrative motion” to compel Defendants to file an answer or to enter their 10 default, which was filed only one day after moving for entry of default, is denied as moot. 11 [Docket No. 50.] Defendants are admonished to comply with all court-ordered deadlines. 12 As the court previously noted, Defendants raised only a jurisdictional challenge to the 13 original complaint and thus conceded that Plaintiffs’ original claims were sufficiently pleaded. 14 Aug. 4, 2021 Order at 3. Therefore, the sole remaining basis for Defendants to challenge the 15 amended complaint is jurisdictional. See id. (ordering Defendants to file a Rule 12(b)(1) motion if 16 they “have jurisdictional challenges to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint”). Defendants shall file a 17 Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenging Plaintiffs’ amended complaint or an answer to the 18 amended complaint along with any affirmative defenses and counterclaims by no later than 19 September 29, 2021. Any motion must comply with Civil Local Rule 7-2 and must cite 20 applicable authority for the relief sought. 21 Defendants’ “Motion for a 14-day limited jurisdictional discovery and to file a responsive 22 pleading thereafter,” which was filed without any factual or legal support whatsoever, is denied. 23 [Docket No. 51.] Plaintiffs’ “administrative motion” to strike Defendants’ motion for 24 jurisdictional discovery and for sanctions is denied. [Docket No. 52.] 25 The court reiterates that it expects the parties to familiarize themselves with all applicable 26 rules, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules, and strictly 27 comply with them. Additionally, the parties shall refrain from filing unnecessary Local Rule 7-11 ] motions for administrative relief. For example, if a party opposes the other side’s request for 2 || relief, that party shall simply file an opposition to the request, rather than filing a motion for 3 administrative relief seeking to strike the earlier submission. To the extent a party believes that a 4 || motion for administrative relief is necessary and appropriate, that party must comply with Local 5 || Rule 7-11, including submitting “either a stipulation under Civil [Local Rule] 7-12 or by a 6 || declaration that explains why a stipulation could not be obtained.” Civ. L.R. 7-11(a). 7 Going forward, any party that fails to comply with this or any other order may be subject to sanctions. DIST) 8 Ry Cy S 9 S IT IS SO ORDERED □ 10 & ORDERED | □□ 1 Dated: September 22, 2021 it [A a 12 j fs VOU: Ry Z\ \\ Abering Mave SYS 13 Nile Stres strale udgA& oe ~ OY Ly OS DISTRICS- 16

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