Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02021/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02021-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1333in Personal Injury

---

1 

18cv2021-MMA (JMA) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JANE DOE, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

JEFFRIES, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No. 18cv2021-MMA (JMA) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT; 

[Doc. No. 4] 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SETTLEMENT DATE AND 

JUDGMENT 

[Doc. No. 7] 

Plaintiff Jane Doe, proceeding pro se, brings this personal injury action against 

various Riverside County officials. Plaintiff moves for entry of default judgment against 

all named defendants. See Doc. No. 4. Plaintiff also requests an “immediate settlement 

date with assigned judges and counsel.” See Doc. No. 7. For the reasons set forth below, 

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. 

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court notes that obtaining a default judgment is a two-step 

process. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). First, a party must obtain 

Case 3:18-cv-02021-MMA-LL Document 9 Filed 10/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv2021-MMA (JMA) 

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

a clerk’s entry of default under Rule 55(a); thereafter, the party may seek entry of default 

judgment under Rule 55(b). Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 

(9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has not requested nor obtained entry of default by the Clerk of 

Court. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is procedurally improper and 

subject to denial on this basis alone. See, e.g., Vongrabe v. Sprint PCS, 312 F. Supp. 2d 

1313, 1318 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (“[A] plain reading of Rule 55 demonstrates that entry of 

default by the clerk is a prerequisite to an entry of default judgment.”). 

Furthermore, the Court has no authority to enter default judgment against 

defendants over whom it lacks personal jurisdiction. Service of the complaint and 

summons in a civil action is a critical first step in establishing the Court’s personal 

jurisdiction over a party. As the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears 

the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology 

Associates, 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1977). Plaintiff has not provided the Court 

with proof of service as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l)(1), and there is 

no indication on the record that any of the defendants waived service pursuant to Rule 

4(d). Plaintiff argues in her moving papers that she served each defendant with the 

summons and complaint via certified mail. However, certified mail is not an appropriate 

method of service on an individual within a judicial district of the United States under 

federal law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). 

Nor does Plaintiff’s effort constitute proper service under California law. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.30 provides that a party may 

attempt service via mail on individuals residing in California. However, in order to 

effectuate service by mail, a copy of the summons and of the complaint must be mailed 

“together with two copies of the notice and the acknowledgment [of receipt of summons] 

. . . and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender.” Cal. Civ. Proc. 

Code § 415.30(a). Plaintiff does not indicate whether she complied with these statutory 

requirements, and she has failed to produce an executed acknowledgement returned by 

any of the defendants. Even if Plaintiff received a postal service return receipt, this 

Case 3:18-cv-02021-MMA-LL Document 9 Filed 10/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv2021-MMA (JMA) 

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

would not suffice as a substitute for an executed acknowledgement of receipt of 

summons. See Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. App. 3d 911, 913 (1981). As 

such, the Court cannot conclude that service has been completed as to any of the 

defendants. 

In order to obtain default judgment against a named defendant in this action, 

Plaintiff must serve each defendant properly, in accordance with federal or California 

law, and provide sufficient proof of service to the Court. Entry of default by the Clerk of 

Court will be appropriate only if a defendant who has been properly served fails to 

answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in a timely manner. 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment 

without prejudice. In light of the current procedural posture of the case, the Court also 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference and judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: October 17, 2018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-02021-MMA-LL Document 9 Filed 10/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3