Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02522/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02522-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDY NICHOLAW,

Plaintiff

 v.

WALT DISNEY CO., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-2522 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR DEFAULT

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff’s “Request for Entry of Default [and] Clerk’s

Judgment,” filed June 21, 2007.

Plaintiff asserts each defendant named herein has been served and has failed to

timely respond to the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In

support of his assertion that each defendant has been served, plaintiff relies on a

declaration from one Robert Forest, who states he “served” the FAC, the summons, and

other documents at “Corporate office address of Walt Disney Co., Mr. Robert A. Iger, CEO

and President, Walt Disney Co.” in Burbank, California, and that he mailed a copy of such

documents to the Burbank office, where, according to a “UPS Tracking Summary,” the

documents were delivered to a person identified only as “Sherin.”

The Court finds plaintiff has failed to show proper service of any defendant.

First, plaintiff has failed to show he effectuated service on Walt Disney Co., because

Case 3:07-cv-02522-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/25/07 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

plaintiff has not shown proper service on a corporation in compliance with Rule 4(h) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Second, plaintiff has failed to show he effectuated service on Robert A. Iger,

because plaintiff has not shown proper service on an individual in compliance with Rule

4(e).

Finally, with respect to each remaining defendant, plaintiff has failed to show any

attempt at service, and his conclusory assertion that Walt Disney Co. is “respondent [sic]

superior, et alis” with respect to the other defendants has no bearing on the issue of

service.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02522-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 2