Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00974/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00974-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00624-LB) 

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 Francisco Division 

QINGDAO TANG-BUY 

INTERNATIONAL IMPORT & EXPORT 

COMPANY, LIMITED, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PREFERRED SECURED AGENTS, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-00624-LB 

ORDER REQUIRING UPDATES 

REGARDING SERVICE AND 

CONTINUING THE HEARING ON MR. 

REILAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Re: ECF No. 42] 

The plaintiff Qingdao Tang-Buy Int’l Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao”) filed a complaint 

against the defendant Preferred Secured Agents, Inc. (“PSA”) on February 9, 2015. (Complaint, 

ECF No. 1.) On March 18, 2015, PSA answered it and filed a cross-claim against the crossdefendant Michael Kule. (Answer and Cross-Claim, ECF No. 10.) Qingdao and PSA consented to 

the undersigned’s jurisdiction. (Consents, ECF Nos. 9, 12.) So far, Mr. Kule has not appeared in 

this action or responded to PSA’s cross-claim. PSA has not filed a proof of service, and it is not 

clear whether PSA has served him. (See 5/13/2015 CMC Statement, ECF No. 24 at 2 (PSA notes 

that it attempting to serve Mr. Kule in New York and China).) 

On July 11, 2015, the court granted Qingdao’s unopposed motion for leave to file a First 

Amended Complaint. (7/11/2015 Order, ECF No. 36.) Qingdao filed the First Amended 

Complaint on July 13, 2015. (FAC, ECF No. 37.) In it, Qingdao not only named PSA as a 

Case 3:17-cv-00974-LB Document 51 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-00624-LB) 

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 

defendant but also named three new defendants: Retail Business Associates, LLC (“RBA”); Mark 

Cardinale; and Hal Reiland. (Id.) Qingdao served PSA with the First Amended Complaint via ECF 

on July 13, 2015, but so far PSA has not responded to it. Qingdao says it served Mr. Reiland with 

the First Amended Complaint on August 18, 2015 (although there is no proof of service 

evidencing this), and Mr. Reiland filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2015. (CMC 

Statement, ECF No. 45; Motion, ECF No. 42.) And although Qingdao said on September 21, 2015 

that it planned to serve RBA and Mr. Cardinale with the First Amended Complaint within two 

weeks, Qingdao has not filed any proofs of service for them, and they have yet to appear or 

respond to it. (CMC Statement, ECF No. 45.) RBA, Mr. Cardinale, and Mr. Reiland have neither 

consented to nor declined the undersigned’s jurisdiction. 

In light of this procedural posture, the court orders as follows: 

1. By October 16, 2015, Qingdao must file a status update stating whether it has served RBA 

and Mr. Cardinal with the First Amended Complaint. If they have, they must file proofs of 

service by that day as well. 

2. By October 16, 2015, PSA must file a status update stating whether it has served Mr. Kule 

with its cross-claim. If it has, it must file proof of service by that day as well. 

3. By October 16, 2015, all served and appearing parties must file a consent or declination to 

proceed before a magistrate judge (attached). 

4. The hearing on Mr. Reiland’s motion to dismiss is continued from October 15, 2015 to 

9:30 a.m. on November 5, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 9, 2015 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00974-LB Document 51 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2