Greentree Financial Group, Inc.,v. World Nation Live Entertainment, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER denying 23 Motion for Default Judgment. Renewed Motion due by 8/7/2017. Any such motion must be served on Sheldon Drobny, at the address listed in Docket No. 24. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 GREENTREE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 vs. 13 WORLD NATION LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:16-cv-00972-GMN-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 23) 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for entry of default judgment. Docket 17 No. 23. On July 8, 2017, a response was served in opposition arguing, inter alia, that service was not 18 properly effectuated in this case. Docket No. 24. Plaintiff did not file a reply, and the deadline for doing 19 so has expired. See Local Rule 7-2(b). 20 “A defendant’s default does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment.” 21 PepsiCo., Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002). The Ninth Circuit has 22 made clear that the Court has a duty to ensure that a defendant is properly before the Court prior to 23 entering default judgment against it. Tuli v. Republic of Iraq, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). Hence, 24 in deciding whether to grant a motion for default judgment, the Court is required to assess the adequacy 25 of service of process on the party against whom default is requested. DFSB Kollective Co. v. Bourne, 26 897 F. Supp. 2d 871, 877 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The party moving for default judgment bears the burden 27 of showing that service was proper. Reynolds Innovations, Inc. v. E-CigaretteDirect, LLC, 851 F. Supp. 28 1 2d 961, 963 (M.D.N.C. 2012). Conclusory assertions that service was properly effectuated fail to satisfy 2 that burden. Doe v. Alsaud, 12 F. Supp. 3d 684, 687 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (collecting cases). 3 In this case, Plaintiff submitted a proof of service on the paralegal for the purported authorized 4 agent of Defendant. Docket No. 20. The pending motion for default judgment states without 5 elaboration that “Greentree perfected service” pursuant to that proof of service. Docket No. 23 at 2. The 6 response to the motion explains that such service was ineffective, however, as the recipient of that 7 service was not the registered agent of Defendant and that none of Defendant’s (or its successor’s) 8 officers or directors received notice of this lawsuit. Docket No. 24 at 2.1 9 The Court need not resolve herein the ultimate issue of whether service was effectuated. Instead, 10 the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that service was properly effectuated fails to 11 satisfy its burden on that issue. Accordingly, the renewed motion for default judgment is hereby 12 DENIED without prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff continues to seek default judgment, it must file its 13 second renewed motion for default judgment by August 7, 2017, and such motion must address the 14 sufficiency of service and all other required showings necessary to obtain default judgment. Any 15 such motion must be served on Sheldon Drobny, at the address listed in Docket No. 24. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED: July 24, 2017 18 19 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 This response was filed pro se, and the Court construes it liberally. See, e.g., Berhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) 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?