Ringcentral, Inc. v. Quimby et al

Filing 45

ORDER RE: 43 . Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/8/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2010)

Download PDF
Ringcentral, Inc. v. Quimby et al Doc. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 **E-filed 11/8/2010** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RINGCENTRAL, INC., v. Plaintiff, No. C 09-2693 RS ORDER United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BILL QUIMBY, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ On April 8, 2010, the Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge herein and entered a default judgment against Bill Quimby and TollFreeNumbers.com, Inc. On November 4, 2010, defendants filed a motion to stay enforcement of the judgment and a motion to vacate the judgment, both noticed for hearing on December 16, 2010. Defendants did not seek relief under Civil Local Rule 6-3 to have the motion to stay heard on an expedited basis.1 On November 8, 2010, defendants contacted the Clerk of the Court and advised that they are in fact seeking expedited consideration of the motion to stay. Under the circumstances, no separate 1 In the body of the stay motion, defendants reference potential "ex parte" relief under Civil Local Rule 7-10. Under that rule, an ex parte motion is one filed without notice to opposing party, and is permissible only where authorized under the circumstances by a statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order. Defendants, however, e-filed their motions, with the result that they were automatically served on plaintiff. Rule 7-10 is simply not applicable here. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 application under Rule 6-3 will be required, and the Court will proceed to the merits of the stay motion. The motion to stay enforcement of the judgment is denied, without prejudice, for the following reasons: 1. Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure vests the Court with discretion to enter such a stay, "[o]n appropriate terms for the opposing party's security." Here, defendants have not proposed any terms to provide for plaintiff's security. 2. Defendants contend they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in this forum when judgment was entered. They have not, however, addressed the grounds on which the Report and Recommendation, adopted by the Court, expressly found such jurisdiction to exist over each of them. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the parties shall forthwith engage in good faith meet and confer negotiations regarding (1) whether the default judgment should be set aside by stipulation, and on what terms, and (2) assuming no such stipulation is reached, what, if any, arrangements can be made to protect plaintiff's interests pending a ruling on the motion to set aside the default judgment without causing undue burden or hardship to defendants, and without expending further judicial resources in multiple fora in seeking to enforce a judgment that may or may not ultimately be set aside. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 11/8/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?