Seng v. Americana Investments, LLC et al

Filing 111

ORDER DISCHARGING 108 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST REMAINING DEFENDANTS: Plaintiff's claims against defendants Margaret V. Anderson-Clarke and Anderson-Clarke Law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/9/2014. (alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01745-REB-KMT
CHUN CHEE SENG,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARGARET V. ANDERSON-CLARKE, and
ANDERSON-CLARKE LAW,
Defendants.

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
AND DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST REMAINING DEFENDANTS
Blackburn, J.
The matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Claims Against Defendants Margaret V. Anderson-Clarke and Anderson-Clarke
Law Without Prejudice [#110],1 filed September 4, 2014. I grant the motion and
discharge the Order To Show Cause [#108] to which it is responsive.
On August 21, 2014, I approved and adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation insofar as it recommended granting plaintiff’s motion for partial
summary judgment on its claim for breach of contract against defendant Americana
Investments, LLC. I dismissed all other claims against this defendant. (See Order Re:
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#107], filed August 21, 2014.)

1

“[#110]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

Given my earlier order dismissing defendants Brian D. West and the West Law Group,
P.C., for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Order Re: Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge [#106], filed August 20, 2014), the only defendants remaining
in this lawsuit were Margaret V. Anderson-Clarke and Anderson-Clarke Law, both
Canadian citizens who have failed to answer or otherwise appear in this matter.
Although plaintiff has secured entries of default against these parties from the clerk of
the court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (see Clerk’s Entry of Default [#77], filed June 16,
2014, and Clerk’s Entry of Default [#79], filed June 26, 2014), he has not sought
default judgments against them under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). I therefore ordered plaintiff
to show cause why the court should either dismiss the claims against these defendants
or enter default judgments against them. (Order To Show Cause [#108], filed August
21, 2014.)
The present motion is responsive to that order and discharges plaintiff’s
obligations thereunder. By this motion, plaintiff admits that he cannot allege facts
sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over these remaining defendants in this
forum. Any default judgment entered against them therefore would be void. See Bixler
v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 761 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Personal jurisdiction over the defendant
is required before a default judgment in a civil case may be entered.”); Williams v. Life
Savings and Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1202-03 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (judgment is
void if entered in absence of subject matter or personal jurisdiction, and “[r]elief from a
void judgment is mandatory”). The motion to dismiss these claims without prejudice
therefore is well-taken and will be granted.

2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Against Defendants
Margaret V. Anderson-Clarke and Anderson-Clarke Law Without Prejudice [#110]
filed September 4, 2014, is GRANTED;
2. That plaintiff’s claims against defendants Margaret V. Anderson-Clarke and
Anderson-Clarke Law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
3. That the Order To Show Cause [#108] entered August 21, 2014, is
DISCHARGED.
Dated September 9, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3