From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amazon.com v. Pionera Inc.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 27, 2023
2:22-cv-01491 DJC AC PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01491 DJC AC PS

12-27-2023

AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Nevada corporation, and RING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiffs, v. PIONERA INC., a California corporation, MANOJ GOEL, an individual, and DOES 1-50, Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was initially filed against Manoj Goel, an individual, and a corporation, Pionera, Inc. ECF No. 1. Neither party initially responded to the complaint and plaintiff moved for default judgment. ECF No. 15. Goel, appearing in pro se, opposed the default judgment motion, explaining that he is the owner of Pionera, that he does not have money for this lawsuit, and asking that the case be dismissed. ECF No. 18. The court advised Goel that it would vacate the entry of default against him individually, but that Pionera remained in default because a corporate entity must have representation. ECF No. 31. Default judgment was entered as to Pionera on September 26, 2023. ECF No. 33.

On October 31, 2023, plaintiff requested that the Clerk of Court again enter default against Goel. ECF No. 34. The request informed the court that Goel was refusing to participate in the litigation and noted that he failed to timely respond to the complaint. Id. at 3. The Clerk of Court entered default against Goel on November 2, 2023. ECF No. 35. Goel responded to the entry of default with a letter, reiterating to the court that he does not have the money to participate in litigation, and asking the court to vacate the entry of default. ECF No. 36.

Defendant is informed that financial inability to retain counsel does not excuse a party from participation in litigation.

On November 17, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for discovery set to be heard on December 20, 2023. ECF Nos. 39, 40. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), Goel was required to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition within 14 days of the motion being filed. Goel did not file any opposition or respond to the motion in any way. Plaintiff's motion indicates that Goel is refusing to participate in this case, including a failure to participate in the required Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference. ECF No. 39. Defendant Goel is informed that failure to participate in this case may result in legal consequences including default judgment. The court will not vacate the entry of default entered by the Clerk of Court at this time.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall show cause, in writing, within 14 days, why his failure to respond to the pending motion should not result in a recommendation that sanctions be entered against him. Defendant's filing must include a declaration that he will participate in a 26(f) conference with plaintiff's counsel. If plaintiff fails to respond, the court will recommend sanctions, up to and including entry of default judgment against him, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 110 and 183.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Amazon.com v. Pionera Inc.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 27, 2023
2:22-cv-01491 DJC AC PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2023)
Case details for

Amazon.com v. Pionera Inc.

Case Details

Full title:AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 27, 2023

Citations

2:22-cv-01491 DJC AC PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2023)