Mukati v Doe

Filing 37

ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND NEED FOR FURTHER INFORMATION re 35 Response ( Non Motion ) filed by Mohammad Mukati. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/6/2018. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MOHAMMAD MUKATI,

CASE NO. 17-cv-07093-YGR

Plaintiff,

7
8

vs.

9

JOHN DOE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

10

ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF
DEFAULT AND NEED FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION
Re: Dkt. No. 35

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

This case arises out of defendant John Doe’s alleged unauthorized transfer of control over

13

445 of plaintiff’s domain names (the “defendant domain names”). On March 16, 2018, plaintiff

14

filed a request for entry of default against the 445 defendant domain names (Dkt. No. 32

15

(“Request”)), and the Court subsequently expressed concerns regarding service of process (Dkt.

16

No. 33). Plaintiff’s recent filing purports to address the Court’s concerns. (Dkt. No. 35

17

(“Response”).)

18
19
20
21

Relevant here, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) provides that
the following actions constitute service of process:
(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this
paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address
provided by the registrant to the registrar; and

22
23

(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the
action.

24

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa)-(bb).1 In light of plaintiff’s response, the Court is satisfied

25

that plaintiff has complied with the ACPA’s statutory requirements for service by publication as to

26
27
28

1

Section 1125(d)(2)(B) sates, “[t]he actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute
service of process.”

1

the 434 active domain names at issue in this case.2 However, as indicated above, compliance with

2

the ACPA’s service requirements requires more. Namely, plaintiff must also send notice of the

3

lawsuit to “the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the

4

registrant to the registrar[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa). The Court is unable to

5

discern, based on the face of the proof of service filed on February 13, 2018 (Dkt. No. 28) or

6

plaintiff’s response, that service by mail and e-mail pursuant to the ACPA was in fact effectuated

7

as to all 434 domain names. As it appears plaintiff has gleaned new information regarding the

8

registrant’s postal and email address since the filing of plaintiff’s proof of service on February 13,

9

2018 (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 35-2 at ECF 3), plaintiff shall notify the Court of any efforts made to
effectuate service by mail and e-mail in light of this new information by written response no later

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

than Friday, April 13, 2018.3

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: April 6, 2018
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff has indicated that he has been unable to renew 11 of the original 445 domain
names at issue in the case. Thus, there remain 434 active domain names at issue. (See Reponse at
2.)
3

The Court additionally notes that plaintiff’s request for entry of default pertains to 445
domain names. (See Dkt. No. 32-2, Request Exh. A.) However, only 434 domain names remain
at issue in the case, as previously mentioned. (See supra note 1.) Accordingly, plaintiff shall file
an updated exhibit containing the correct domain names.
2