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