Camargo v. Miltiadous

Filing 34

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE: REQUEST FOR DEFAULT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/6/2016. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARLA CAMARGO, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 MILTON MILTIADOUS, Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 14-cv-04490-JSC ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE: REQUEST FOR DEFAULT Re: Dkt. No. 33 12 Over a year ago, Plaintiff Carla Carmago filed this civil action against Defendant Milton 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Miltiadous and Does 1-10 alleging various tort claims arising from defamatory statements Defendants allegedly posted regarding her on several internet sites. The Court granted several extensions of time for Plaintiff to serve Miltiadous, an Australia citizen and resident of Tokyo, Japan. On December 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed an affidavit of service for of the summons and complaint. (Dkt. No. 30.) The affidavit indicates that Tatushiko Kinoshita served Defendant Miltiadous at a specified address using “delivery services” on October 30, 2015. (Id. at ¶ 2.) The affidavit further states that “[o]nce the documents above noted were delivered to the address above noted and were received by a resident of it, however, the documents were sent back to me.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) At the Case Management Conference on December 3, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that service had been made on Defendant Miltiadous in multiple forms and clarified the statement in Mr. Kinoshita’s declaration. Plaintiff was ordered to file her motion for default with the Court by December 31, 2015. Plaintiff was instructed to include everything to show service, including any further declarations, citation to Japanese law regarding service, and any information about other forms of service on Defendant. Plaintiff’s subsequently filed request for default fails to 1 include the information requested by the Court and makes no showing as to how service on 2 Defendant was made in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)’s requirements for 3 service of a foreign defendant. The motion does not even reference Rule 4, the Hague 4 Convention, or any Japanese law governing service of process. Instead, it simply states that 5 “Plaintiff effected personal service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Miltiadous on 6 October 30, 2015, as evidenced by the Declaration of Service on file with this Court.” (Dkt. No. 7 33 at 1.) This is inadequate to establish service on a foreign defendant. 8 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief regarding her request for default that demonstrates, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), that Defendant Miltiadous failed to appear after he was properly served in accordance with Rule 4(f). Plaintiff 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 shall file her supplemental brief on or before January 20, 2016. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 6, 2016 15 16 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?