Opinion
2:20-cv-00994-CDS-VCF
10-19-2022
Mina De Oro, LLC, and The Toy Chest, LLC Plaintiffs v. Matthew Brent Goettsche, et al., Defendants
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO MOVE FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR SHOW CAUSE WHY NOT, ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE, AND ORDERING DEFENDANT TO RESPOND
CRISTINA D. SILVA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Having granted defendant Goettsche's motion to dismiss, I now address the remaining defendants in this case: Jobediah Sinclair Weeks, Silviu Catalin Balaci, Bitclub, and Joseph Frank Abel. By November 18, 2022, I order the plaintiffs to either move for default judgment against Abel or show cause why they are not doing so, I order the plaintiffs to file proof of service as to Balaci and Bitclub, and I order Weeks to respond to the plaintiffs' first-amended complaint.
I. Defendant Abel
In February 2021, the Clerk of Court entered default against Abel. ECF No. 20. To date, the plaintiffs have not moved for default judgment against him. The plaintiffs are hereby ordered to move for default judgment against Abel or show cause why they are not doing so by November 18, 2022. The plaintiffs are reminded to ensure that any motion for default judgment complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 55 and addresses the seven factors in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Failure to do so by the deadline could result in the dismissal of the action without prejudice as to Abel for failure to prosecute.
II. Defendants Balaci and Bitclub
To date, the plaintiffs have not filed proof of service as to defendants Balaci or Bitclub. This order constitutes notice that this action may be dismissed without prejudice as to those two parties unless the plaintiffs file proof of service with the clerk by November 18, 2022. Service on the parties must have taken place prior to the expiration of time limit set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), or good cause must be shown as to why such service was not made in that period.
III. Defendant Weeks
In October 2020, the magistrate judge held a hearing and ordered defendant Weeks's response to the plaintiff's complaint to be stayed “pending further order of the court.” ECF No. 12. I was assigned to this case a few months ago and am unfamiliar with the underlying reasons that Weeks's response was stayed. Defendant Weeks is therefore ordered to respond to the first-amended complaint (ECF No. [33]) by November 18, 2022. Failure to do so by the deadline could result in an entry of default against him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.