Jitrade, Inc. v. Style in USA, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT STYLE IN USA, INC.S MOTION TO DISMISS 25 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court STRIKES Defendant Style In USAs Motion to Dismiss. Defendant may file a motion to set aside entry of default on or before October 30, 2017. (lc). Modified on 10/3/2017 (lc).

Download PDF
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California 8 9 10 11 JITRADE, INC., 12 13 14 15 16 v. Case No. 2:17-CV-04245-ODW-SK Plaintiff, STYLE IN USA, INC. d/b/a NADIA, APPLEB, B-TWEEN, and 1 STYLE IN USA; CALYSTA APPAREL, INC. d/b/a SWAY; TREND NOTES, INC.; BIGGERNBETTER, INC. d/b/a ABEAUTY BY BNB; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT STYLE IN USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS [25] Defendants. 18 19 I. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff Jitrade, Inc. (“Jitrade”) filed this action against Defendants Style In USA, Inc. (“Style In USA”), Calysta Apparel, Inc., Trend Notes, Inc., and Biggernbetter, Inc. alleging (1) copyright infringement; (2) vicarious copyright infringement; and (3) contributory copyright infringement. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Before the Court is Style In USA’s Motion to Dismiss Jitrade’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 25.) Because the Clerk has entered default against Style In USA, and they have not moved to set aside entry of default, the Court STRIKES the Motion. /// 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 Jitrade is a California corporation that creates, purchases, and obtains rights to 3 two-dimensional graphic artworks for use on textiles and garments that are used in the 4 fashion industry. (Compl. 2.) Style In USA is a California corporation engaged in 5 work related to the fashion industry. (See Compl. ¶ 16.) Jitrade alleges that Style In 6 USA infringed on its copyright by creating and selling garments featuring Jitrade’s 7 textile design without its permission. (Compl. ¶ 27.) 8 Jitrade served the Complaint on Style In USA on July 25, 2017, and Style In 9 USA was required to file a responsive pleading by August 15, 2017. (Proof of 10 Service, ECF No. 19.) Style In USA did not file a responsive pleading by the 11 deadline, and on September 7, 2017, Jitrade requested the Clerk for entry of default. 12 (ECF No. 23.) The Clerk entered default against Style In USA on September 9, 2017, 13 at 8:24 A.M. (ECF No. 24.) Style In USA then moved to dismiss on September 9, 14 2017, at 9:53 A.M. (Mot., ECF No. 25.) Jitrade did not file an opposition to Style In 15 USA’s Motion to Dismiss. 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Once default has been entered against a defendant, they have “lost [their] 18 standing in court, cannot appear in any way, cannot adduce any evidence, and cannot 19 be heard at the final hearing.” Clifton v. Tomb, 21 F.2d 893, 897 (4th Cir. 1927) 20 (citation omitted); see also Great Am. Ins. Co. v. M.J. Menefee Const., Inc., No. CV F 21 06-0392-AWI-DLB, 2006 WL 2522408, at * 2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2006) (“Entry of a 22 defendant’s default cuts off a defendant’s right to appear in an action . . .”). The 23 proper remedy for a defendant seeking to set aside a default and defend an action is to 24 file a motion to set aside entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 55(c). Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, Inc. v. Meyers, 13-cv-0980-SJO-VBK, 26 2013 WL 12142605, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013). A defaulted defendant may only 27 file a motion to set aside the default by showing good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 55(c); see also Clifton, 21 F.2d at 897 (stating that a defaulted party “should show 2 1 good cause before the default should be set aside”). 2 Style In USA’s Motion asserts that Jitrade’s Complaint should be dismissed 3 because it is duplicative of another pending suit concerning the same copyright 4 designs at issue here. (Mot. 3.)1 The Motion does not address Style In USA’s default 5 nor does it provide a showing of good cause as to why the Court should set aside 6 default. (See generally Mot.) Because Style In USA is a defaulted defendant, and has 7 not moved to set aside default, the Court STRIKES its Motion. See Warner Bros., 8 2013 WL 12142605, at *1 (striking defendant’s motion to dismiss filed after Clerk 9 entered default).2 V. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons discussed above, the Court STRIKES Defendant Style In 12 USA’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 25.) Defendant may file a motion to set aside 13 entry of default on or before October 30, 2017. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 October 2, 2017 17 18 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 83-1.3, parties are required to promptly file a Notice of Related Civil Cases with the Court should they become aware of two or more civil cases filed in this District which: “(a) arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event; (b) call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or (c) for other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-1.3. 2 Because the Court need not address the merits of the Motion, the Court also declines to take Judicial Notice of the requested documents at this time. (ECF No. 26.) 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?