Jeremy Miller v. Hotel Avenida – Oceanside Camp Pendleton; Somnath
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Jeremy Miller moved for default judgment against Defendants Hotel Avenida and Somnath, who had failed to appear. The Court denied the motion without prejudice and ordered Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing within 14 days to establish personal jurisdiction over Defendant Hotel Avenida.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring supplemental briefing on personal jurisdiction over Defendant Hotel Avenida“Plaintiff is required to SHOW CAUSE why Defendant Hotel Avenida is a proper defendant in this matter. Plaintiff SHALL PROVIDE supplemental briefing addressing whether Defendant Hotel Avenida is a separate legal entity or whether Defendant Hotel Avenida is simply the trade name for Defendant Somnath’s motel business.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it has an affirmative duty to ensure personal jurisdiction exists before entering default judgment. Because the plaintiff's motion and complaint failed to address personal jurisdiction over Defendant Hotel Avenida, and the supplemental briefing on service did not cure this defect, the court was required to order additional briefing to resolve the jurisdictional question. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's holding in In re Tuli that a court must affirmatively verify personal jurisdiction before entering default judgment. The court accurately notes that the plaintiff failed to address personal jurisdiction over Defendant Hotel Avenida in the motion or complaint, and that the prior supplemental briefing on service did not resolve the jurisdictional issue. The order appropriately places the burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate that Defendant Hotel Avenida is a proper defendant and that personal jurisdiction exists over it.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY MILLER, Case No.: 25-CV-1852 JLS (SBC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 HOTEL AVENIDA – OCEANSIDE (ECF No. 8) CAMP PENDLETON; SOMNATH, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Jeremy Miller’s Motion for Default Judgment 18 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 8). Defendants Hotel Avenida – Oceanside Camp Pendleton 19 (“Defendant Hotel Avenida”) and Somnath (collectively, “Defendants”) have failed to 20 respond to the Motion or otherwise appear in this action. See generally Docket. After 21 reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion, the Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1), and weighing the 22 relevant factors, the Court requires additional information to decide the Motion. 23 The Court previously ordered supplemental briefing regarding service of process, 24 ECF No. 12, which Plaintiff provided, ECF No. 13. However, before determining whether 25 to enter default judgment against Defendants, the Court must also confirm it has personal 26 jurisdiction. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment 27 is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, a district court has 28 an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the 1 || parties.”’). Plaintiff carries the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See, e.g., Jackson v. Red 2 || Rock Credit Sols., LLC, No. 22-CV-4471-AGT, 2023 WL 5663218, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3 2023). 4 The Court requires additional information to determine whether there is personal 5 || jurisdiction over Defendant Hotel Avenida. Plaintiff does not address personal jurisdiction 6 their Motion or Complaint. See generally Mot.; Compl. The only reference Plaintiff 7 ||makes to personal jurisdiction over Defendant Hotel Avenida is in their supplemental 8 || briefing regarding service where Plaintiff concludes that, because service was proper under 9 || California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.95, the Court has personal jurisdiction. 10 || ECF No. 13 at 4. Plaintiff has done extensive research to determine the business entity of 11 Defendant Hotel Avenida—with no success. See id. However, Plaintiff has provided 12 || evidence that Defendant Somnath is the owner of Hotel Avenida, located at 1403 Mission 13 Oceanside, CA, 92058, and has demonstrated that the Court has general personal 14 jurisdiction over Defendant Somnath based on its state of incorporation being California. 15 || Mot. Exs. 4, 5. 16 Plaintiff is required to SHOW CAUSE why Defendant Hotel Avenida is a proper 17 || defendant in this matter. Plaintiff SHALL PROVIDE supplemental briefing addressing 18 || whether Defendant Hotel Avenida is a separate legal entity or whether Defendant Hotel 19 || Avenida is simply the trade name for Defendant Somnath’s motel business. If Plaintiff 20 ||concludes that Defendant Hotel Avenida is a separate legal entity and a proper named 21 ||defendant in this matter, then Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide supplemental briefing 22 ||addressing why personal jurisdiction is proper over Defendant Hotel Avenida. This 23 || briefing is due fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is electronically docketed. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 ||Dated: May 21, 2026 ok 27 United States District Judge 28