Sanho Corporation v. CIMO Technologies, Inc

Filing 48

ORDER referring 47 MOTION to Vacate 16 Clerks Notice of Entry of Default to Magistrate Judge Vadas for a report and recommendation; and denying MOTION Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 12/1/2011. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 SANHO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 ORDER CIMO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 11-2473 PJH Defendant. _______________________________/ 12 13 On July 22, 2011, plaintiff Sanho Corporation (“Sanho”) filed a request for entry of 14 default against defendant Cimo Technologies, Inc. (“Cimo”). Default was entered by the 15 clerk on July 26, 2011, and the notice of entry was filed on July 28, 2011. On October 21, 16 2011, Sanho filed a motion for default judgment. On October 26, 2011, the motion was 17 referred to Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, for a 18 report and recommendation. 19 On November 8, 2011, Cimo filed an opposition to the motion for default judgment, 20 in which it also requested that the court vacate the default, and dismiss the first amended 21 complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 15, 22 2011, Sanho filed a motion to strike Cimo’s opposition as untimely, and to also strike 23 Cimo’s other motions. Sanho requested that its motion to strike be heard on shortened 24 time. 25 On November 18, 2011, Judge Vadas issued an order denying Cimo’s motion to 26 vacate the default and motion to dismiss without prejudice, as improperly noticed, and also 27 denying Sanho’s motion for an order shortening time as moot. Judge Vadas advised that 28 Cimo could “re-notice its motions as appropriate and pursuant to the Local Rules.” 1 On November 29, 2011, Cimo filed a motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of default, 2 and a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Cimo noticed the motions for hearing 3 before the undersigned on January 4, 2012. 4 The motion to vacate the default is hereby REFERRED to Judge Vadas, pursuant to 5 Local Rule 72-1, for a report and recommendation once the parties have been fully heard 6 on the motion. The motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice, as premature, as no 7 decision has yet been made on Cimo’s motion to vacate the default. 8 9 Dated: December 1, 2011 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 15 16 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?