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)

Download PDF
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?