Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08212/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08212-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 485
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment

---

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

GIA CALHOUN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLRISH, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-08212-JCS 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION TO STRIKE 

AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

DEFAULT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 36, 37

Plaintiff Gia Calhoun filed this action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

naming “Flrish, Inc.” as Defendant. See generally Compl. (dkt. 1). The introductory paragraph of 

Calhoun’s complaint identifies the defendant as “Flrish, Inc. d/b/a Harborside.” Id. at 1. 

Summons was issued to “FLRISH, INC. c/o JOHN HANKS NICHOLS,” and executed on January 

6, 2020. See dkt. 12. Defense counsel Raymond Kim of the Reed Smith firm thereafter entered an 

appearance on behalf of “FLRISH, Inc. dba Harborside, Inc.” Dkt. 16. A separate attorney from 

the same firm, Sevana Zadourian—who has not yet entered her own appearance—filed a form 

consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction on behalf of “FLRish, Inc. dba Haborside.” Dkt. 18. 

On March 18, 2020, after the parties stipulated to an extension of time to respond, Zadourian filed 

an answer on behalf of “Defendant FLRish Retail Management & Security Services, LLC 

(‘FLRish’) (erroneously sued as ‘Flrish, Inc.’).” See Answer (dkt. 31) at 1. On April 6, 2020, 

Zadourian—on behalf of the same LLC entity—filed a motion to stay proceedings pending 

resolution of cases currently before the Supreme Court of the United States. See Mot. to Stay (dkt. 

33). On April 8, 2020, Plaintiff Calhoun filed a motion to strike the answer on the basis that 

FLRish Retail Management & Security Services, LLC is not a party to the case, and a motion to 

enter FLRish, Inc.’s default.

The Court expects that the parties can resolve this threshold issue of which entity is the 

Case 3:19-cv-08212-JCS Document 38 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 2
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

defendant without motion practice. Calhoun’s motion to strike and motion for entry of default are 

DENIED without prejudice. Counsel for the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer via 

videoconference no later than April 16, 2020, and Zadourian must file her notice of appearance 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(c)(2) by the same date. 

No later than April 23, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to file any one of the following: 

(1) a stipulation that Calhoun’s complaint may be deemed to name FLRish Retail Management & 

Security Services, LLC as the defendant, and the answer can stand as filed; (2) a stipulation that 

the answer (and all other defense filings) may be deemed filed on behalf of FLRish, Inc.; (3) a new 

answer on behalf of FLRish, Inc. and a stipulation that the Court may disregard the answer filed 

on behalf of the LLC; (4) any other stipulation the parties might reach to resolve the issue; or (5) a 

joint letter brief of no more than three single-spaced pages explaining why the parties have not 

resolved the issue and each party’s proposed resolution.

Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, Calhoun shall respond in due course to the pending 

motion to stay proceedings as if it were filed by the correct defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2020

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-08212-JCS Document 38 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 2