ORDER REGARDING PROOF OF SERVICE
Plaintiffs Coach, Incorporated ("Coach") and Coach Services, Incorporated ("Coach Services") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek 16 entry of Default Judgment against Defendants Diana Fashion and Diane Dao (collectively, "Defendants"). ECF No. 14 ("App. for Default J."). On October 13, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Application for Default Judgment on the grounds that (1) the Proofs 20 of Service indicate that "Diana Dao," as opposed to Defendant Diane Dao, was served on June 2, 2011, and (2) the Proofs of Service do 22 not show that the Complaint was served on Defendants. ECF No. 18 ("October 13th Order") at 4. The Court stated that it would reconsider its ruling if, within fifteen days of the October 13th Order, Plaintiffs filed a corrected Proof of Service showing that Defendants were properly served on June 2, 2011, along with a 27 declaration verifying the corrected Proof of Service and describing thhe filingg error rrelative to the ooriginal Proof off Servicee. Id. aat 4-5.
inndicatingg that Deefendant Diane Daao had beeen serveed with tthe Suummons byy Robina Alves (""Alves"), a regisstered Caaliforniaa processs 6 server, onn June 2, 2011. ECF Nos. 19, 20 ("Correccted Prooofs of 7 Prroofs of Service, do not indicatee that thhe Complaaint was served oon 9 Plainntiffs suubsequenttly filedd Correctted Prooffs of Serrvice Service"). The Coorrected Proofs oof Servicce, like the origginal 8 Defendantss. Plainntiffs' aattorney, Cindy CChan ("Chhan"), deeclares 10 thhat Dao hhad been personallly serveed with tthe Summoons and CComplaintt onn June 2, 2011 annd that DDao's namme had beeen spellled incorrrectly oon thhe Proofss of Servvice inittially fiiled withh the Couurt. ECFF No. 21 ("Chan Deccl."). IIt is uncclear howw Chan coould havee direct and personal kknowledgee of thesse facts as Alvess, not Chhan, servved Dao. 15 defective.
The CCourt GRAANTS Plaiintiffs lleave to file an affidaviit or 18 declaratioon from RRobina Allves indiicating tthat a coopy of thhe 19 Iff, withinn fifteenn days off this Orrder, Plaaintiffs are unabble to 21 demonstratte that DDefendantts were iin fact pproperly served oon June 22, 22 Plaintiffss Motion for Defaault Judggment shaall remaiin DENIEDD.
Acccordinglly, Plainntiffs' sservice oof processs continnues to aappear Coomplaint and Summmons weree served on Defenndants onn June 2,, 2011.
2011, thenn the Couurt will not recoonsider iits Octobber 13th Order annd
UNITED STTATES DISSTRICT JUUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...