Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 239

MOTION for Entry of Default against Defendant Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd. filed by CrunchPad, Inc., Interserve, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nicholas W. Short in Support of Plaintiffs' Request to Clerk for Entry of Default Against Defendant Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd.)(Bloch, David) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/14/2012 (gba, COURT STAFF).

1

5

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530)
[e-mail]
Nicholas W. Short (SBN: 253922)
[e-mail]
101 California Street, Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2
3
4

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Winston & Strawn LLP

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11

TECHCRUNCH, INC., et al.

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,
vs.
FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD.,
Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. C 09-cv-05812-RS (PSG)
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO CLERK FOR
ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST
DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE,
LTD.
Judge:
Location:

Hon. Richard Seeborg
Courtroom 3, 17th Floor

17

TO: THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

18

Plaintiffs TechCrunch, Inc. and CrunchPad, Inc. filed their initial complaint in this matter on

19

December 10, 2009, Dkt. No. 1, and personally served the summons and complaint on defendant

20

Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd. on December 18. Dkt. No. 7. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint

21

on September 13, 2010, Dkt. No. 167, which Fusion Garage answered on March 1, 2011. Dkt. No.

22

195. Fusion Garage amended its answer on April 14, 2011. Dkt. No. 207. Fusion Garage’s

23

amended answer is the defendant’s operative pleading in this case.

24

On December 13, 2011, Fusion Garage’s lawyers moved for leave to withdraw as counsel.

25

Dkt. No. 230. The Court granted their motion and directed Fusion Garage to retain new counsel by

26

February 1, 2012, or “appear and show cause on February 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m., why its answer

27

should not be stricken and its default entered.” Dkt. No. 236.

28

Fusion Garage did not retain new counsel by February 1 and did not appear at the February 9,
-1PLAINTIFFS REQUEST TO CLERK FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
AGAINST DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE, LTD.

Case No. C 09-cv-05812-RS (PSG)

1

2012 hearing. Short Decl. ¶ 2. Consequently, at the February 9 hearing, the Court struck Fusion

2

Garage’s answer. Dkt. No. 238 (minute order).

3

Because Fusion Garage has failed to appear and defend itself through counsel despite the

4

Court’s order, and because Fusion Garage’s operative answer (Dkt. No. 207) has now been stricken,

5

the plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Clerk enter default against Fusion Garage pursuant to Rule

6

55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

7

Fusion Garage has received notice of this request for entry of default by service (via

8

ECF/PACER and electronic mail) on its former counsel, pursuant to Northern District of California

9

Civil Local Rule 11-5(b). See also Dkt. No. 236 (“Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), until new

101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

Winston & Strawn LLP

10

counsel has entered an appearance, any papers to be served on Fusion Garage may be served on

11

Quinn Emmanuel for forwarding purposes.”). As a courtesy, TechCrunch will also send (via Federal

12

Express and fax) a copy of this request and the supporting declaration to Fusion Garage’s liquidators

13

in Singapore, who have previously responded to correspondence from TechCrunch’s attorneys.

14
15

Dated: February 10, 2012

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

16
17
18

By: /s/ Nicholas W. Short
David S. Bloch
Nicholas W. Short

19

Attorneys for Plaintiffs TechCrunch, Inc., and
CrunchPad Inc.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2PLAINTIFFS REQUEST TO CLERK FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
AGAINST DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE, LTD.

Case No. C 09-cv-05812-RS (PSG)