Guo v. 8bo.com et al

Filing 21

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING; CONTINUING HEARING. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on April 18, 2014. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 DANNI GUO and JIAWEI LU, Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 17 Case No. 13-cv-05299 NC ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING; CONTINUING HEARING v. 8BO.COM, and others, Re: Dkt. No. 16 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiffs in this cybersquatting action move to serve defendant domains by email. 20 Dkt. No. 16. In support of their motion, plaintiffs point to the methods of service permitted 21 by the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act when bringing an in rem action. 15 22 U.S.C ยง 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa). But plaintiffs fail to discuss whether their proposed 23 method of service is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. 24 Therefore, the Court orders plaintiffs to submit further briefing, not to exceed five 25 pages, that addresses whether service of defendant domains is permissible under Rule 4. 26 Plaintiffs must specifically address whether defendants are domestic or foreign, and if 27 foreign, whether email service is permissible under Rule 4(f). Plaintiffs must submit their 28 brief within seven days of this order. The case management conference and hearing on the Case No. 13-cv-05299 NC ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING; CONTINUING HEARING 1 motion for service by email are continued until April 30, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A. 2 The Court does not require an additional case management statement. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Date: April 18, 2014 5 _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 13-cv-05299 NC ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING; CONTINUING HEARING 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?