Mosley v. Groupon Inc., et.al.

Filing 131

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/24/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

WILLIAM MOSLEY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF
ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

v.
AMERICAN DUCT PROS, INC, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, the Court HEREBY REQUESTS

14

supplemental briefing, of no more than 10 pages, on two issues: First, Plaintiffs shall address

15

whether they properly served Defendants American Duct Pros, Inc. (“ADP”) and National Duct

16

Cleaning Services Inc. (“NDCS”). Plaintiffs’ certificate of service states that Plaintiffs served the

17

civil lawsuit notice, summons, complaint, civil case cover sheet, and Santa Clara County Superior

18

Court alternative dispute resolution information sheet on ADP and NDCS via first class mail.

19

ECF 6. However, neither California law nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for

20

service of a corporation by mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.10; see

21

Hunstock v. Estate Dev. Corp., 22 Cal. 2d 205 (1963) (construing “delivery” as personal service).

22

Plaintiffs’ reliance on Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.40 is misplaced, as that section governs service

23

on a person outside of California, not a corporation.

24

Second, Plaintiffs shall address whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over

25

Defendant Barak Schnitman. Citing Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., Plaintiffs contend that

26

personal jurisdiction can be established through personal service or a defendant’s minimum

27

contacts with the jurisdiction. Mot. 3, ECF 130. Plaintiffs claim that personal jurisdiction can be

28

established through personal service is accurate, but only if personal service occurs within the

1

boundaries of the state in which the federal court sits or if a federal statute provides for nationwide

2

service of process. Cripps, 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiffs did not serve

3

Schnitman within California, nor have they cited any statute that provides for nationwide service

4

of process. See Certificate of Service, ECF 102 (showing that Plaintiffs served Schnitman in

5

Illinois). Moreover, the paragraphs of the Complaint to which Plaintiffs direct the Court regarding

6

Defendants’ minimum contacts say nothing of Schnitman’s contacts with the forum. Accordingly,

7

Plaintiffs are requested to explain how this Court has personal jurisdiction over Schnitman.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Any supplemental briefing must be filed on or before May 8, 2017. Failure to provide
supplemental briefing shall result in denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for inadequate service and lack of
personal jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: April 24, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2