From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coach, Inc. v. Diana Fashion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 21, 2011
Case No. 11-2315 SC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 11-2315 SC

10-21-2011

COACH, INC.; COACH SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs, v. DIANA FASHION, an unknown business entity; DIANE DAO, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.


ORDER REGARDING PROOF OF SERVICE

Plaintiffs Coach, Incorporated ("Coach") and Coach Services, Incorporated ("Coach Services") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek entry of Default Judgment against Defendants Diana Fashion and Diane Dao (collectively, "Defendants"). ECF No. 14 ("App. for Default J."). On October 13, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Application for Default Judgment on the grounds that (1) the Proofs of Service indicate that "Diana Dao," as opposed to Defendant Diane Dao, was served on June 2, 2011, and (2) the Proofs of Service do not show that the Complaint was served on Defendants. ECF No. 18 ("October 13th Order") at 4. The Court stated that it would reconsider its ruling if, within fifteen days of the October 13th Order, Plaintiffs filed a corrected Proof of Service showing that Defendants were properly served on June 2, 2011, along with a declaration verifying the corrected Proof of Service and describing the filing error relative to the original Proof of Service. Id. at 4-5.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed Corrected Proofs of Service indicating that Defendant Diane Dao had been served with the Summons by Robina Alves ("Alves"), a registered California process server, on June 2, 2011. ECF Nos. 19, 20 ("Corrected Proofs of Service"). The Corrected Proofs of Service, like the original Proofs of Service, do not indicate that the Complaint was served on Defendants. Plaintiffs' attorney, Cindy Chan ("Chan"), declares that Dao had been personally served with the Summons and Complaint on June 2, 2011 and that Dao's name had been spelled incorrectly on the Proofs of Service initially filed with the Court. ECF No. 21 ("Chan Decl."). It is unclear how Chan could have direct and personal knowledge of these facts as Alves, not Chan, served Dao. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' service of process continues to appear defective.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file an affidavit or declaration from Robina Alves indicating that a copy of the Complaint and Summons were served on Defendants on June 2, 2011. If, within fifteen days of this Order, Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that Defendants were in fact properly served on June 2, 2011, then the Court will not reconsider its October 13th Order and Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment shall remain DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Coach, Inc. v. Diana Fashion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 21, 2011
Case No. 11-2315 SC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2011)
Case details for

Coach, Inc. v. Diana Fashion

Case Details

Full title:COACH, INC.; COACH SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs, v. DIANA FASHION, an…

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

Date published: Oct 21, 2011

Citations

Case No. 11-2315 SC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2011)