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).

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