Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00407/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00407-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

SD-3C, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUN RIXIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-00407-JST 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO 

SEEK INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’

DEFAULT

Re: ECF Nos. 114, 115

Before the Court is Judge Grewal’s Report and Recommendation that Summary Judgment 

Be Granted as to the Individual Defendants in this case. ECF No. 114. 

This action was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal for resolution. But 

because certain individual defendants never appeared in the case, and those defendants never 

consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge. Accordingly, when Judge Grewal entered 

summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor as to the consenting defendants, he also issued a report and 

recommendation that summary judgment be entered as to the individual, non-consenting

defendants. ECF Nos. 114. Judge Grewal then ordered that the case be reassigned to a district 

court judge for resolution as to the non-consenting defendants. ECF No. 115.

Although Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the court to enter summary 

judgment against a defendant before she has answered the complaint, courts generally hesitate to 

embrace this approach unless it is clear that an answer cannot raise a genuine issue of material 

fact. C. P. Jhong, Annotation, Propriety of entering summary judgment for plaintiff before 

defendants files or serves answer to complaint or petition, 85 A.L.R.2d 825 §§ 1, 2(a) (originally 

published in 1962) (“where there are several defendants against whom plaintiff seeks a summary 

judgment, the fact that an answer has been served by one of them does not entitle the plaintiff to 

judgment as against the others who have not answered”); see, e.g., Peoples Bank v. Fed. Reserve 

Case 3:12-cv-00407-JST Document 117 Filed 04/01/15 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

Bank of S.F., 58 F. Supp. 25, 27 (N.D. Cal. 1944) (“It is clear that, under Rule 56(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, . . . a party seeking to recover upon a claim or to obtain declaratory 

relief may move for summary judgment in his favor only after a pleading responsive to the 

complaint has been filed.”); but cf. Gifford v. Travelers Protective Ass’n of Am., 153 F.2d 209, 

210-11 (9th Cir. 1946) (permitting entry of summary judgment against a non-answering plaintiff

because there was no question of fact relating to whether the lawsuit was filed within the statute of 

limitations).

Here, because the individual, non-appearing defendants have not filed answers to the 

complaint, and because the Court does not conclude that answers could not raise a genuine issue 

of material fact, the Court finds that the best course of action is to require Plaintiff to seek default 

against the individual defendants.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff to file a motion for entry of default by the 

Court Clerk pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Once default is entered, Plaintiff 

may file a motion for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). 

Plaintiff shall file its motion for entry of default within fourteen days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00407-JST Document 117 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 2