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)

Download PDF
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?