UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 2, 2013
HSIAO & MONTANO, INC. DBA ODYSSEY INNOVATIVE DESIGNS, PLAINTIFF,
BANGDE ZHANG, GUANGZHOU HDE AUDIO EQUIPMENT CO LTD, GUANGZHOU MONSCK CASE FACTORY CO LTD, GUANGZHOU JISKA AUDIO EQUIPMENT CO LTD, AND DOES 1--10, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge
ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Having read and considered Plaintiff Hsiao & Montano, Inc's pending motion for default judgment (ECF No. 27), the Court has serious concerns regarding the adequacy of service on all Defendants and questions whether it has personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. "When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties." In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). But Hsiao & Montano's Complaint and motion fail to elucidate how this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Bangde Zhang- "an individual residing in China" (Compl. ¶ 2)-or Defendants GHAEC, Monsck, or Jiska-all "China business entit[ies] of unknown form . . . operating under the laws of China" with their principal places of business in China (Compl. ¶ 3--5).
In addition, the proofs of service the Court has on file indicate that Hsiao & Montano personally served individual Defendant Zhang with process for himself and the three organizational Defendants in Garden Grove, California. Yet Hsiao & Montano's Complaint alleges on information and belief that Zhang is the agent for service of process only for Defendant GHAEC; Hsiao & Montano fails to note anywhere in the record who the agent for service of process is for Defendants Monsck or Jiska.
The Court therefore ORDERS Hsiao & Montano to submit a supplemental brief (1) setting forth the basis for the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants; and (2) supporting the adequacy of its method of service over each Defendant. Hsiao & Montano should also address why it believes service under the Hague Convention was not warranted here. Hsiao & Montano's supplemental brief is due no later than May 24, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.