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)
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?