Opinion
23-CV-995 JLS (AHG)
08-19-2024
THANE CHARMAN, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CORE DIGITIAL MARKETING LLC, D/B/A HIGH END CLIENT, an Ohio LLC; KENT LITTLEJOHN, an individual; and MATTHEW BARCUS, an individual, Defendants.
ORDER (1) DISMISSING ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS KENT LITTLEJOHN AND MATTHEW BARCUS PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S JULY 17, 2024 ORDER; AND (2) CLOSING THE FILE
(ECF No. 19)
Hon. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
On July 17, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Thane Charman's Motion for Default Judgment (“Mot.,” ECF No. 17), which he had filed against Defendants Core Digital Marketing LLC d/b/a High End Client (“Core Digital”), Kent Littlejohn (“Littlejohn”) and Matthew Barcus (“Barcus”) (collectively, “Defendants”). See generally ECF No. 19 (the “Order”). Specifically, the Court granted the Motion in part as to Core Digital-entering a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Core Digital in the amount of $115,000-but otherwise denied the Motion. See id. at 24.
In its prior Order, the Court also ordered Plaintiff to, by August 7, 2024, show cause as to why his claims against Defendants Barcus and Littlejohn (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to respond by [that] deadline may result in the dismissal of this action as to Barcus and Littlejohn.” Id. (emphasis in original). Nevertheless, August 7 has come and gone without any word from Plaintiff.
As the Court previously found Plaintiff had not established personal jurisdiction as to the Individual Defendants, id. at 10-12, and Plaintiff did not attempt to remedy this failing nor otherwise comply with the July 17 Order, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants Littlejohn and Barcus from this action, see In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[W]hen a court is considering whether to enter a default judgment, it may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of personal jurisdiction.”). And as this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.