Abokasem et al v. Royal Indian Raj Int'l Corp. et al
ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is granted and the Court will consider the merits of the motion for default judgment. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 30, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2012)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
MOHAMED ABOKASEM, et al.,
No. C 10-1781 MMC
ROYAL INDIAN RAJ INTERNATIONAL
CORP., et al.,
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion, filed November 29, 2012, for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion
for default judgment against defendants Manoj and Anjula Benjamin. (See Mot. for Entry of
Default J., filed Oct. 12, 2012; Order, filed Nov. 28, 2012 (denying motion, without
prejudice, based on failure to serve defendants).)
In support thereof, plaintiffs assert the Court’s order is “based on a mistake of fact,”
in that, according to plaintiffs, they did not acknowledge in said motion their failure to
comply with the Court’s prior order directing them to serve the motion on said defendants.
(See Mot. for Recons., filed Nov. 29, 2012, at 1: 27.) The Court disagrees. Irrespective of
what plaintiffs intended to say in their October 12, 2012 motion, no proof of service was
filed in connection therewith and the only reference to service therein gives rise to the
reasonable inference that no service was accomplished. (See Mot., filed Oct. 12, 2012, at
2:24-27 (“Plaintiffs contend a new motion is not needed. . . . If, however, the Court wants a
new motion to be filed and served, [p]laintiffs will comply with this request.”).)
Nevertheless, in light of plaintiffs’ showing in support of the instant motion that they
did serve defendants as instructed by the Court, and in the interest of judicial economy, the
Court construes the instant motion as a motion for reconsideration, hereby GRANTS
reconsideration, VACATES its order denying the motion for default judgment, and will
consider said motion on its merits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 30, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District 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?