ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Security One International, Inc. et al
Filing
186
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying without prejudice 121 Motion for Default Judgment (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
vs.
Case No.: 11-CV-05149 YGR
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION OF ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
SECURITY ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al.,
Defendant(s).
13
14
15
Plaintiff ADT Security Services, Inc. (“ADT”) has filed a Motion for Default Judgment
16
against Defendants Scellusaleads and Pure Clar, requesting fees, costs, damages, and a permanent
17
injunction.
18
Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, for the
19
reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion for Default
20
Judgment.
21
Subsequent to filing its Motion for Default Judgment, ADT filed a Third Amended
22
Complaint. Thus, the pleading on which ADT seeks default judgment is no longer the operative
23
pleading; nor is there any proof that the allegedly defaulting defendants have been served with the
24
operative pleading. What is more, the pleadings in this matter are not set. (See Defendant Safe
25
Home Security, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 158.) Further, damages are not for a sum
26
certain (or a sum that can be made certain by computation), and the evidence necessary to prove
27
damages against the defaulting defendants is nearly identical to the evidence ADT would need to
28
establish liability against the non-defaulting defendants. Thus, entering a default judgment would
1
risk inconsistent judgments between the defaulting and the non-defaulting parties and would result
2
in duplicative proceedings, which is contrary to the interests of judicial economy.
3
4
Based on the foregoing, ADT’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
5
This Order Terminates Dkt. No. 121.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Date: January 9, 2013
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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
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?