Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02453/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02453-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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

- 1 - 10CV2452

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN J. DONELL, Permanent

Receiver for Learn Waterhouse, Inc., its

subsidiaries and affiliates,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV2453-LAB (WVG)

ORDER RE: ENTRY OF

DEFAULT; 

vs. AND ORDER RE: DISMISSAL

ROBERT WARMAN,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Stephen Donell requested the Clerk to enter a default against the Defendant

Robert Warman for failing to respond or appear. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), "[w]hen a party

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise

defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's

default." The Clerk then entered a default against Warman.

Donell claimed that Warman was served with process as provided by Cal. Civ. Proc.

Code § 415.40. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) (permitting service as provided under state law).

Donell further stated that service was made by certified mail, which is permitted under

§ 415.40. Pathak v. Omaha Steaks Int'l, Inc., 2011 WL 1152656 at *1 (C.D.Cal., March 28,

2011); Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp., 179 Cal.App.4th 868,

897 (2009). Under § 415.40, however, proof of service must include "evidence satisfactory

Case 3:10-cv-02453-LAB-WVG Document 9 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10CV2452

to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed return receipt

or other evidence." Donell did not provide a signed return receipt or any other evidence to

establish proof of service, but merely provided the Court with a copy of the summons, and

a statement that it and the complaint were sent by certified mail to Warman.

Rule 4(e) also permits service in accordance with the state law where service is made,

in this case Michigan. But under Michigan’s service of process rule 2.105, service by certified

mail is appropriate, return receipt requested, and “[a] copy of the return receipt signed by the

defendant must be attached to proof showing service under subrule (A)(2).” Donell fares no

better under this provision.

Because Donell failed to provide adequate proof of service, the entry of default is

VACATED.

On June 7, the Court ordered Donell to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to serve or for failure to prosecute. Donell filed a response asserting

Defendant had been served, and he is now prepared to prosecute this action. In view of the

vacatur of the entry of default, it is unclear whether Donell will prosecute this action as

promised. Donell is therefore ORDERED to file adequate proof of service no later than

Wednesday, July 13, 2011, and then to renew his request for entry of default. If he does

not do so, this action will be dismissed for failure to serve and for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

United States District Judge 

Case 3:10-cv-02453-LAB-WVG Document 9 Filed 07/01/11 Page 2 of 2