From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., v. Allied Transp. Sys. (Usa), Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 27, 2012
Case No. 10-cv-558 6-SC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 10-cv-558 6-SC

12-27-2012

MITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD., Plaintiff, v. ALLIED TRANSPORT SYSTEM (USA), INC.; CENTURION LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT; CENTURION LOGISTICS SERVICES, LTD.; UNION LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the application of Plaintiff Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. for default judgment against Defendant Centurion Logistics Services, Ltd. ECF No. 133 ("App."). Though Plaintiff has perfected service of process on Defendant, see ECF No. 88, the record does not disclose that Plaintiff has served Defendant with the pending Application. In that Application, Plaintiff seeks damages of $1,918,348.60. Before the Court will exercise its discretion to award such significant damages, the Court wishes to see proof that Plaintiff has served Defendant with the Application and supporting papers. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth factors guiding district court's exercise of discretion in entering default judgment, including "the sum of money at stake in the action" and absence of "excusable neglect"); cf. Shanghai Automation Instrument Co., Ltd. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (finding absence of excusable neglect because defendant had been "properly served with the Complaint, the notice of entry of default, as well as the papers in support of the [application for default judgment]"); Bd. of Trustees v. Core Concrete Const., Inc., 11-3259 SC, 2012 WL 525553, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2012) (same).

Within twenty-one (21) days of the signature date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file proof that (a) this Order and (b) the pending Application for Default Judgment, as well as supporting papers, have been served on Defendant. The Court will allow ten (10) days from the date of such service for Defendant to file a response. After the ten-day period elapses, the Court will reconsider Plaintiff's Application. Plaintiff need not resubmit the Application or renotice it for hearing; the matter will be resolved on the papers submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., v. Allied Transp. Sys. (Usa), Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 27, 2012
Case No. 10-cv-558 6-SC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2012)
Case details for

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., v. Allied Transp. Sys. (Usa), Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD., Plaintiff, v. ALLIED TRANSPORT SYSTEM (USA)…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 27, 2012

Citations

Case No. 10-cv-558 6-SC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2012)