Mukati v Doe

Filing 33

ORDER re 32 MOTION for Entry of Default filed by Mohammad Mukati. Written response by 3/28/2018. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/21/2018. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MOHAMMAD MUKATI,
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF
DEFAULT

8

vs.

9

JOHN DOE, ET AL.,

10

CASE NO. 17-cv-07093-YGR

Re: Dkt. No. 32

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff’s request for entry of default against the 445 defendant

13

domain names at issue in this litigation. (Dkt. No. 32 (“Request”).) In his request, plaintiff notes

14

the following:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

On January 30, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing service by publication in
the Legal Notices section of the Los Angeles Times on February 2, 2018, and
February 9, 2018. . . . Plaintiff caused to have published in the Legal Notices
section of the Los Angeles Times a notification of the action on February 2, 2018,
and February 9, 2018. Plaintiff filed its proof of service by publication herewith. . .
. On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a proof of service by postal [sic] and email
as to all of the domains. Accordingly, service pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) was
deemed completed on such date.
(Request ¶¶ 3–5 (citations omitted).)
The service by publication referenced above pertained only to the five domain names over

22

which Namecheap, Inc. is allegedly the registrant. (See Dkt. No. 27 (“The Los Angeles Times is

23

deemed an effective method for notice by publication, because five of the allegedly stolen domain

24

names have been transferred to Namecheap, Inc., located in Los Angeles.”) (emphasis supplied);

25

see also Dkt. No. 30-2 (specifically referencing only five domain names).) Thus, plaintiff’s

26

statement regarding the proof of service filed on February 13, 2018 appears to suggest that the

27

remaining 438 domain names at issue in this case were served by mail and email. The Court,

28

however, is unable to discern based on the face of the proof of service (Dkt. No. 28) that service

1
2

was in fact effectuated as to the 438 remaining domain names.
Without additional information, the Court cannot grant the request as framed. Thus,

3

plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to address the Court’s concerns regarding service of process and

4

shall file a written response by no later than Wednesday, March 28, 2018.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: March 21, 2018
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