Facebook, Inc., v. Grunin
Filing
65
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT by Judge William Alsup [denying 44 Motion to Set Aside Default]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
FACEBOOK, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff,
No. C 14-02323 WHA
v.
MARTIN GRUNIN,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT
Defendant.
/
INTRODUCTION
In this action involving alleged computer fraud and abuse, defendant moves to set aside
entry of default. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is DENIED.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. commenced this action in May 2014. The only named defendant,
20
Martin Grunin, was personally served on May 22, 2014 (Dkt. No. 13). Mr. Grunin then
21
voluntarily appeared in May 2014, by filing a hodgepodge of materials, including a document
22
allegedly conferring “special limited power of attorney” on an individual named “Brian-Robert:
23
Costello” (Dkt. No. 8). Mr. Grunin also filed various documents from this action, such as the
24
summons and complaint, on which an individual wrote (Dkt. No. 8):
25
26
27
28
I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO CONTRACT and I DO
NOT CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
BY: Brian Robert: Costello
Public Minister / Diplomat
united states of America [sic]
For: Martin Grunin
1
Mr. Costello then filed a letter, dated June 4, 2014, entitled “Constructive Notice of Conditional
2
Acceptance,” stating, inter alia, that Mr. Grunin had received the complaint, that Mr. Grunin
3
would accept Facebook’s “offer to stop deleting any/all files” upon receipt of a check for
4
$100,000, and that future attempts by Facebook to “communicate or summon” Mr. Grunin to
5
“any public court” would require consideration of one million dollars (Dkt. No. 10). The action
6
was reassigned to Judge Charles Breyer in June 2014.
7
Default was recorded against Mr. Grunin on June 23, 2014 (Dkt. No. 22). Mr. Grunin
8
then filed a letter titled “Notice of Offer to Settle,” appending a copy of a check to Facebook for
9
the amount of $250 (Dkt. No. 23). Other documents filed by Mr. Grunin purported to penalize
Facebook monetarily for non-compliance with Mr. Grunin’s “terms.” A July 2014 order by
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Judge Breyer prohibited Mr. Costello, a non-attorney, from appearing on behalf of Mr. Grunin
12
(Dkt. No. 33). Docket numbers 8, 10, and 17 were stricken. For the record, docket numbers 23,
13
26, 27, and 31 are hereby stricken for the same reasons outlined in the July 2014 order, as they
14
fail to satisfy FRCP 8(b), and are otherwise immaterial under 12(f).
15
On July 30, 2014, pro se Mr. Grunin filed an “Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment”
16
purporting to deny, inter alia, the allegations in the complaint (Dkt. No. 35). In pertinent part,
17
the document stated that Mr. Grunin “denies that the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT is
18
the district court for the United States.” On August 7, Mr. Grunin filed another affidavit stating,
19
inter alia, that “LAWYERS and LAWYER-JUDGES: Created unconstitutional ‘lawyer system’
20
pre-trial ‘motions’ and ‘Hearings’ to have external EXTORTIONISTIC litigation’s [sic] . . . .”
21
(Dkt. No. 39).
22
On August 18, Mr. Grunin moved via counsel, Seth Weinstein at the Law Offices of Seth
23
Weinstein, located in Sherman Oaks, and Andrew B. Gordon at Gordon Law Group, Ltd.,
24
located in Lake Zurich, Illinois, to set aside entry of default. This action was reassigned to the
25
undersigned judge in September 2014. No motion for a default judgment has been filed yet,
26
although Facebook has opposed Mr. Grunin’s motion. This order will now briefly summarize
27
the allegations in the complaint.
28
2
1
The complaint alleges that Mr. Grunin violated the terms of Facebook’s Statement of
sexually provocative material on Facebook’s website. Mr. Grunin also allegedly used
4
unauthorized or fraudulent means to obtain and sell access to advertising accounts unaffiliated
5
with him. Additionally, Mr. Grunin allegedly impersonated representatives from other
6
companies in order to access and profit from their advertising accounts. Facebook alleges that
7
since 2011, it has disabled at least seventy accounts linked to Mr. Grunin. The complaint alleges
8
the following claims for relief: (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) violations of the Computer
9
Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, and (4) violations of the California Comprehensive
10
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code 502(c). Facebook seeks, inter alia,
11
For the Northern District of California
Rights and Responsibilities by using multiple user accounts to repeatedly place ads containing
3
United States District Court
2
damages and injunctive relief.
12
13
ANALYSIS
FRCP 55(c) permits the court to set aside entry of default for good cause. The “good
14
cause” standard considers three factors: (1) whether defendant engaged in culpable conduct that
15
led to the default, (2) whether defendant presents a meritorious defense, or (3) whether reopening
16
the default judgment would prejudice the plaintiff. Franchise Holding II, LLC. v. Huntington
17
Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925–26 (9th Cir. 2004). Defendant bears the burden of
18
showing that these factors favor setting aside the entry of default.
19
This order finds that Mr. Grunin has failed to present a meritorious defense. He has
20
failed to show good cause for setting aside the default and, indeed, it would be hopeless to do so
21
based on the record presented.
22
A defendant seeking to set aside an entry of default must present specific facts that would
23
constitute a meritorious defense. United States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S.
24
Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). A mere general denial without facts to support it is
25
insufficient to justify vacating an entry of default. Franchise Holding II, LLC, 375 F.3d at 926.
26
Mr. Grunin’s showing on the motion presented is wholly inadequate. He has failed to
27
present specific facts that would constitute a meritorious defense. The closest Mr. Grunin comes
28
to presenting any fact constituting a defense is his assertion that Facebook has not alleged it has
3
1
verified his identity. Mr. Grunin contends that Facebook has not shown it was he who in fact
2
committed the acts alleged in the complaint, including consenting to Facebook’s terms of
3
service, controlling the accounts in question, and impersonating other individuals (Br. 6, 7).
4
Furthermore, Mr. Grunin asserts that verifying his identity is essential to proving each claim
5
for relief in the complaint, and that this would require “complex internet sourcing methods”
6
(Reply 10). This is insufficient to constitute a meritorious defense. Mr. Grunin has merely
7
extrapolated Facebook’s alleged failure to prove his identity from the face of the complaint, and
8
has not presented any specific facts constituting a defense. Mr. Grunin does not even deny the
9
alleged behavior. His vague reference to meritorious factual defenses that “will be presented
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
during discovery or at trial” does not suffice.
Mr. Grunin’s attempt to characterize Facebook’s alleged failure to prove his identity
12
as a prospective meritorious “legal” defense, distinct from a factual defense, is unavailing.
13
Mr. Grunin cites Audio Toys, Inc. v. Smart AV Pty Ltd., No. C 06-6298 SBA, 2007 WL 1655793,
14
at 3 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2007) (Judge Sandra Brown Armstrong), and Tri-Continental Leasing
15
Corp., Inc. v. Zimmerman, 485 F.Supp. 495, 497 (N.D. Cal. March 4, 1980) (Judge Albert C.
16
Wollenberg), for the proposition that the moving party need only assert or produce competent
17
evidence of a factual or legal basis for a tendered defense. Mr. Grunin asserts that absent
18
evidence identifying Mr. Grunin as the perpetrator, Facebook’s claims amount only to “an
19
unfounded logical leap” without “proof of proximate causation” (Reply 10). Even accepting
20
such an interpretation, this hardly amounts to a legal assertion or evidence supporting a
21
meritorious defense. Mr. Grunin has produced no sworn evidence regarding a meritorious
22
defense, and his bald, vague arguments are nothing more than a speculative attack on perceived
23
shortfalls with the complaint. Mr. Grunin thus fails to present specific facts that would
24
constitute a meritorious defense. It would be futile to lift the default entered four months ago.
25
26
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Mr. Grunin’s motion to set aside entry of default is
27
DENIED. Nevertheless, Mr. Grunin will be given one last chance to move to set aside entry of
28
default, assuming he agrees to the following condition. If Mr. Grunin files a declaration
4
1
agreeing, under penalty of perjury, to pay in advance all of Facebook’s reasonable attorney’s
2
fees and expenses incurred in response to Mr. Grunin’s improper filings to date, promises to
3
cease making such filings, and establishes factual innocence of the allegations in the complaint,
4
Mr. Grunin may file a renewed motion to lift entry of the default. That motion, however, must
5
address all of the shortfalls identified in this order and must state and explain all of Mr. Grunin’s
6
meritorious defenses, if any. Appended to that motion must be a declaration from Mr. Grunin,
7
signed under oath, supporting his meritorious defenses, i.e., showing that he is actually innocent
8
of the charges. It will not be enough for Mr. Grunin to simply speculate on alleged shortfalls
9
with the complaint. He must tender a meritorious defense. This all must be done and filed by
NOON ON NOVEMBER 13, 2014.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
If no motion is timely filed, Facebook shall file a motion for
default judgment by NOON ON NOVEMBER 20, 2014.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: October 30, 2014.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?