Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Centurion Logistics Management et al
Filing
141
Order by Hon. Samuel Conti denying without prejudice 133 Motion for Default Judgment.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
MITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
11
12
13
14
v.
ALLIED TRANSPORT SYSTEM (USA),
INC.; CENTURION LOGISTICS
MANAGEMENT; CENTURION LOGISTICS
SERVICES, LTD.; UNION LOGISTICS,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 20,
15
16
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 10-cv-5586-SC
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
17
18
The Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the application of
19
Plaintiff Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. for default judgment against
20
Defendant Centurion Logistics Services, Ltd.
21
Though Plaintiff has perfected service of process on Defendant, see
22
ECF No. 88, the record does not disclose that Plaintiff has served
23
Defendant with the pending Application.
24
Plaintiff seeks damages of $1,918,348.60.
25
exercise its discretion to award such significant damages, the
26
Court wishes to see proof that Plaintiff has served Defendant with
27
the Application and supporting papers.
28
F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth factors guiding
ECF No. 133 ("App.").
In that Application,
Before the Court will
See Eitel v. McCool, 782
judgment, including "the sum of money at stake in the action" and
3
absence of "excusable neglect"); cf. Shanghai Automation Instrument
4
Co., Ltd. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2001)
5
(finding absence of excusable neglect because defendant had been
6
"properly served with the Complaint, the notice of entry of
7
default, as well as the papers in support of the [application for
8
default judgment]"); Bd. of Trustees v. Core Concrete Const., Inc.,
9
11-3259 SC, 2012 WL 525553, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2012) (same).
10
United States District Court
district court's exercise of discretion in entering default
2
For the Northern District of California
1
Within twenty-one (21) days of the signature date of this
11
Order, Plaintiff shall file proof that (a) this Order and (b) the
12
pending Application for Default Judgment, as well as supporting
13
papers, have been served on Defendant.
14
(10) days from the date of such service for Defendant to file a
15
response.
16
reconsider Plaintiff's Application.
17
the Application or renotice it for hearing; the matter will be
18
resolved on the papers submitted.
The Court will allow ten
After the ten-day period elapses, the Court will
Plaintiff need not resubmit
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
Dated: December 27, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?