Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc.
ORDER Denying Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery without prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/8/2017. (Valdez, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Case No. 1:17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM
T.G.S. TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Plaintiff Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Roadrunner”) filed this
action against Defendant T.G.S. Transportation, Inc. (“Defendant”), on August 7, 2017. (Doc. 1).
The same day, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion seeking expedited discovery of Defendant and
Roadrunner former employee, Jeffrey Cox’s (“Cox”), alleged wrongful solicitation of
Roadrunner’s employees, contractors, drivers and customers in violation of a non-competition,
non-solicitation, and confidential information agreement entered into by Plaintiff and Cox. (Doc.
Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service in this action and Defendant has not appeared.
While Plaintiff’s supporting declaration suggests that it served a copy of the complaint on
Defendant, Plaintiff has not filed a return of service or an executed summons with respect to
service of the complaint nor the instant ex parte motion. See Declaration of Michael D. Lane
(“Lane Decl.”), (Doc. 2-1 at 2, ¶6). Plaintiff fails to address that the Court currently lacks
personal jurisdiction over defendant.
Until such time as Plaintiff properly serves the summons and complaint on the
Defendant, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the Defendant and cannot consider the merits of
Plaintiff’s ex parte motion. See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc.,
840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant
unless the defendant has been served properly under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4”); see also Omni Capital
Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 S. Ct. 404, 98 L. Ed. 2d 415 (1987)
(“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural
requirement of service of summons must be satisfied”).
Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiff’s ex parte motion without prejudice to renewal
upon proper service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. Plaintiff is directed to serve
the summons and complaint on Defendant and to file proofs of service indicating that it has
properly served Defendant. Once this is done, Plaintiff may file a new request for expedited
discovery or for other requested relief. With any requested relief, that the Court will consider
appropriate Due Process safeguards.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 8, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?