Abokasem et al v. Royal Indian Raj Int'l Corp. et al

Filing 157

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER. The motion for default judgment will be considered on its merits. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 30, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/3/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 MOHAMED ABOKASEM, et al., No. C 10-1781 MMC 11 12 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 14 ROYAL INDIAN RAJ INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al., 15 Defendants. / 16 17 Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion, filed November 29, 2012, for leave to file a 18 motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion 19 for default judgment against defendants Manoj and Anjula Benjamin. (See Mot. for Entry of 20 Default J., filed Oct. 12, 2012; Order, filed Nov. 28, 2012 (denying motion, without 21 prejudice, based on failure to serve defendants).) 22 In support thereof, plaintiffs assert the Court’s order is “based on a mistake of fact,” 23 in that, according to plaintiffs, they did not acknowledge in said motion their failure to 24 comply with the Court’s prior order directing them to serve the motion on said defendants. 25 (See Mot. for Recons., filed Nov. 29, 2012, at 1: 27.) The Court disagrees. Irrespective of 26 what plaintiffs intended to say in their October 12, 2012 motion, no proof of service was 27 filed in connection therewith and the only reference to service therein gives rise to the 28 reasonable inference that no service was accomplished. (See Mot., filed Oct. 12, 2012, at 1 2:24-27 (“Plaintiffs contend a new motion is not needed. . . . If, however, the Court wants a 2 new motion to be filed and served, [p]laintiffs will comply with this request.”).) 3 Nevertheless, in light of plaintiffs’ showing in support of the instant motion that they 4 did serve defendants as instructed by the Court, and in the interest of judicial economy, the 5 Court construes the instant motion as a motion for reconsideration, hereby GRANTS 6 reconsideration, VACATES its order denying the motion for default judgment, and will 7 consider said motion on its merits. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: November 30, 2012 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?