Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Rearden LLC et al

Filing 271

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 265 MOTION for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge; 266 to Augment the Record ISO Motion For De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred To Magistrate. Show Cause Response due by 8/16/2016. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 12, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
SHENZHENSHI HAITIECHENG
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CO.,
LTD., et al.,

7
8

Plaintiffs,
9

Case No. 15-cv-00797-JST
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 265, 266

v.
10
REARDEN LLC, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
On June 30, 2016, defendants and counter-claimants Rearden, LLC, et. al. (“Rearden”)

13
14

filed their second motion for an entry of default judgment against counter-defendant Shenzhenshi

15

Haiticheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (“SHST”) for its failure to participate in discovery.1

16

ECF No. 215. On July 21, 2016, Judge Kim issued a report recommending that this Court enter

17

default judgment against SHST. ECF No. 252.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), SHST had fourteen days from the date of

18
19

Judge Kim’s recommendation to file objections to Judge Kim’s report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

20

By the Court’s calculations, SHST’s objections were due on August 4, 2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

21

6(a)(1). The Court reminded the parties of that fact at the hearing on August 4, 2016. Tr. of

22

Proceedings (August 4, 2016), ECF No. 264 at 3:10-12. However, SHST did not file its

23

objections until August 8, 2016.2 ECF No. 265. Accordingly, the Court orders SHST to show

24

cause why the motion should not be stricken as untimely.

25
26
27
28

1

SHST has since been restored as the plaintiff in this action by virtue of this Court’s recent order
setting aside the substitution order.
2
SHST properly filed its objections as a “Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive
Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge.” Civil L.R. 72-3. SHST also filed a concurrent motion to
augment the record. ECF No. 266.

1

A written response to this order to show cause must be filed by August 16, 2016.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: August 12, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2