Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02625/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02625-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KENNETH L. LENK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02625-BLF 

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Re: ECF 28]

On November 15, 2016, Plaintiff Kenneth Lenk filed an application for entry of default 

judgment against Defendants Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“Monolithic”) and Maurice 

Sciammas (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF 11. The Clerk’s Office declined to enter default as 

to both Defendants. ECF 16, 17. On November 17, 2016, this Court issued an order to show 

cause (“OSC”) why this case should not be dismissed for Lenk’s failure to serve Defendants 

within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. ECF 18. In his timely response to 

the OSC, Lenk detailed his attempts to serve Defendants and stated his belief that he had complied 

with the service requirements of Rule 4. ECF 19. On December 7, 2016, this Court discharged

the OSC and extended the deadline for Lenk to serve Defendants after finding that Plaintiff had 

not yet properly served Defendants. See generally id. 

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s declination to 

enter default as to Monolithic and Mr. Sciammas. See Mot., ECF 28. Civil Local Rule 7-9 

provides that “[b]efore the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and 

liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before a Judge requesting that 

the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order . . . . 

No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the 

motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). In light of his pro se status, the Court construes Lenk’s motion as a 

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and the motion for reconsideration itself. In 

Case 5:16-cv-02625-BLF Document 29 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

this order, the Court addresses only the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, 

which it DENIES. 

A motion for reconsideration may be made on three grounds: (1) a material difference in 

fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable 

diligence, the moving party did not know at the time of the order for which reconsideration is 

sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the 

court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). The moving 

party may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the court. Civ. L.R. 7-

9(c). 

In his motion, Lenk makes the same argument he made in his response to the OSC—that 

he believes he has properly served Defendants under California state law, in compliance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e). See generally Mot. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the 

Court was incorrect in its conclusion that he had not properly served Defendants. Plaintiff 

contends that the U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have undergone 

“significant changes and improvements,” in recent years, and the Federal Rules and California law 

allow for service by mail. However, the cases upon which Plaintiff relies are unavailing. 

Citing Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court, 38 Cal. 3d 243 (1985), Lenk argues that 

service by mail has been accepted or even preferred in some instances. Mot. 3. That case, 

however, is inapplicable, as the California Supreme Court was interpreting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 

415.40, which deals with service on persons outside of California. Here, both Defendants are 

located in California, and thus, neither section 415.40 nor Johnson & Johnson is relevant. 

Plaintiff also cites Cruz v. Favor America, Inc., 146 Cal. App. 4th 488 (Ct. App. 2007), 

arguing that it supports his contention that service by mail is sufficient. Mot. 3. However, Cruz

states that service by mail is completed “when the return receipt is signed by a person so 

authorized by the defendant.” 146 Cal. App. 4th at 498 (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). As previously explained, see ECF 22, Plaintiff has not filed an executed 

acknowledgement form, and thus, the Court has no evidence that Plaintiff has complied with the 

Case 5:16-cv-02625-BLF Document 29 Filed 01/18/17 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

statutory requirements.

1

 The remainder of the cases upon which Plaintiff relies are from courts 

outside of California, and are therefore not binding upon this Court. 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not shown (1) a material difference in fact or law exists 

from that which was presented to the court (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of 

law; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments, 

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. In accordance 

with the Court’s prior order, Plaintiff shall have until February 3, 2017 to effect service on 

Defendants and file the executed summons. If Plaintiff cannot effect personal service on 

Defendants within that time, and if it is appropriate, Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to file via 

substituted service and/or a motion to extend the deadline. If Plaintiff does not do so on or before 

February 3, 2017, the Court will dismiss the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) without 

further notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 

683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2017

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1

Plaintiff also argues that Hunstock v. Estate Dev. Corp., 22 Cal. 2d 205 (1943), upon which this 

Court partially relied to conclude that neither California law nor the Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure allow for service of a corporation by mail, is no longer good law because 

“[a]pproximately 78 years have pas[sed]” since the California Supreme Court issued this opinion. 

Mot. 2. While the Court agrees that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have undergone several 

amendments since 1943, Plaintiff does not provide any authority to support his contention that 

Hunstock is no longer good law. 

Case 5:16-cv-02625-BLF Document 29 Filed 01/18/17 Page 3 of 3