Jha v. General Moving and Storage, FL
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motions to correct a defendant's name, enter default, and enter default judgment in a breach of contract and property damage case. The court granted the motion to correct the name but denied the motions for default and default judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate proper service of process.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to correct defendant's name granted“Plaintiffs motion to correct “Easy Moving Company, NJ” to “Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers” [ECF No. 7] is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court has the inherent authority to correct clerical errors and ensure the correct legal entity is named as a party to the action. The plaintiff provided a basis for the name change, and the court ordered the docket updated and a new summons issued. |
Motion for entry of default denied“Plaintiff's motion requesting entry of default [ECF No. 5], and Plaintiff's motion for default judgment [ECF No. 13], /against Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers are DENIED because Plaintiff has not shown proof that Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers has been properly or timely /served.” | agree with court Personal jurisdiction is a prerequisite for entering default or default judgment. The order recites that the plaintiff's proof of service was for a different entity name and did not establish service on the correctly named defendant. Without proper service, the court lacks jurisdiction to enter default. |
Motion for default judgment denied“Plaintiff's motion requesting entry of default [ECF No. 5], and Plaintiff's motion for default judgment [ECF No. 13], /against Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers are DENIED because Plaintiff has not shown proof that Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers has been properly or timely /served.” | agree with court Default judgment is a final judgment on the merits and requires the court to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Since the court found that service was not properly established, it correctly denied the motion for default judgment. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that personal jurisdiction is a prerequisite for entering default and default judgment. It relies on binding Ninth Circuit authority to support the proposition that service must be in accordance with Rule 4. The reasoning is concise but sufficient to support the denial of the motions based on the lack of proof of proper service.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SACHCHIDANAND JHA, Case No.: 20cv2536-LL-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING 13 v. MOTIONS 14 EASY MOVING, LLC, [ECF Nos. 5, 7, 13] 15 Defendant.
16 17 18 On December 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed his complaint, pro se, naming “General 19 Moving and Storage, FL” and “Easy Moving Company, NJ” as Defendants. ECF No. 1. In 20 his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in July 2020, General Moving and Storage overcharged 21 him for moving services by providing an incorrect low-ball estimate. Id. at 2. Plaintiff 22 therefore sought $3,213 – the difference between the estimated and actual price. Id. at 3. 23 Plaintiff further alleges that in October 2020, Easy Moving Company misrepresented the 24 capacity of the moving truck, overestimated the volume of his goods, and damaged and 25 lost some of his items. Id. Plaintiff therefore sought $1,000 for the overestimation, as well 26 as $13,815 for the damaged and missing items. Id. Plaintiff also sought an unspecified 27 award of punitive damages against both companies. Plaintiff therefore demanded 28 “$19,000+” in damages. ECF No. 1-1. 1 On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that Ranjana Jha 2 ||served “Easy Moving/Packrite Movers” by serving Peter Doody, who Plaintiff describes 3 ||as the “receiver on record for the defendant,” on May 5, 2021. ECF No. 3. On March 12, 4 ||2021, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting entry of default against “Easy Moving, LLC dba 5 || PackRite Movers.” ECF No. 5. Plaintiff also moved to correct the name “Easy Moving 6 || Company, NJ” to “Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers.” ECF No. 7. Finally, Plaintiff 7 dismissed the case against General Moving with prejudice because he “resolved the 8 || dispute.” ECF No. 9. On August 3, 2021, the clerk entered default as to “Easy Moving 9 || Company, NJ.” ECF No. 10. On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to enter default 10 ||judgment for $5,410 as to Easy Moving, LLC. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff explains that he now 11 seeks a lesser amount because “he received a sum of $9,735.00 from his home insurance 12 ||company. /d. at 1. 13 Based on the above, Plaintiffs motion to correct “Easy Moving Company, NJ” to 14 ||“Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers” [ECF No. 7] is GRANTED. The Clerk of 15 || Court shall update the docket to reflect the change. The Clerk of Court shall also issue a 16 ||new summons for Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers. Plaintiff's motion requesting 17 entry of default [ECF No. 5], and Plaintiff's motion for default judgment [ECF No. 13], 18 ||/against Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers are DENIED because Plaintiff has not 19 ||shown proof that Easy Moving, LLC dba PackRite Movers has been properly or timely 20 ||/served. “A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the 21 || defendant has been served in accordance with Rule 4.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 22 || (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982)). Unless 23 || Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses 24 action before then, Plaintiff shall properly serve process on Easy Moving, LLC dba 25 ||PackRite Movers on or before April 8, 2022. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. NO 27 Dated: February 8, 2022 DE | 22 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge