Mosley v. Groupon Inc.,

Filing 131

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

Download PDF
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

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?