Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07123/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07123-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WHATSAPP INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES 

LIMITED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07123-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SET 

ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; 

DENYING MOTION TO AUTHORIZE

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 29

Before the court is defendants NSO Group Technologies Limited (“NSO”) and Q 

Cyber Technologies Limited’s (“Q Cyber” and together with NSO, “defendants”) motion to 

set aside default. Dkt. 24. Also before the court is WhatsApp Inc. (“WhatsApp”) and 

Facebook, Inc.’s (“Facebook” and together with WhatsApp, “plaintiffs”) cross-motion for 

alternative service. Dkt. 29. The matters are fully briefed and suitable for decision 

without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for April 16, 2020 is VACATED. 

Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the 

relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows.

On October 29, 2019, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging: (1) violation of the 

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030; (2) violation of the Comprehensive 

Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code § 502; (3) breach of contract and 

(4) trespass to chattels. Dkt. 1. In the intervening months, plaintiffs attempted service on 

defendants, which are Israeli entities, through a variety of means and pursuant to the 

Hague Convention. Plaintiffs believed that they effected service at defendants’ office in 

Hertsliya, Israel in accordance with the Hague Convention on December 17, 2019. Dkt. 

Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 3
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

20 at 2. Accordingly, on February 27, 2020, plaintiffs filed an application for default (Dkt. 

20), and the Clerk of Court entered default on March 2, 2020, (Dkt. 22).

On March 6, 2020, defendants filed the present motion1 arguing that service under 

the Hague Convention was improper and requesting the court to enlarge time to respond 

to the pleadings by 120 days. Dkt. 24. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to defendants’ 

motion in which they state that do not oppose defendants’ request to vacate the default 

entry. Dkt. 29 at 5–6. Plaintiffs’ filing also included a cross-motion requesting alternative 

service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Id. at 15. Subsequent events have 

overtaken plaintiffs’ cross-motion because on March 12, 2020, plaintiffs re-served 

defendants in accordance with the Hague Convention and on March 16, 2020, the Israeli 

Central Authority issued formal certificates showing service to be complete. Dkt. 33. The 

parties agree that the cross-motion for alternative service is no longer necessary (and 

plaintiffs move to withdraw that motion). Id.; Dkt. 40.

To summarize these events, the parties agree that the entry of default should be 

set aside. They also agree that service has been properly effected, but dispute whether 

service is effective as of March 12, 2020 or March 16, 2020.

2

 According to the 

certificates of service filed by plaintiffs, service was effective on March 12, 2020. Dkts. 

32-1; 32-2. Defendants did not waive service and their response to the pleadings is due 

within 21 days of March 12, 2020. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1); 12(b). Defendants also 

1 Defendants have also filed a motion for sanctions. Dkt. 29. The court does not address 

the pending motion for sanctions in this order.

2 The parties do not agree on whether defendants were served on March 12th (when 

plaintiffs represent that defendants received the pleadings and summons) or March 16th 

(when the Israeli Central Authority issued a formal certificate of service). Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(a)(1) generally provides that “[a] defendant must serve an answer: (i) 

within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint” unless defendant has 

timely waived service under Rule 4(d). Here, the certificates of service for both 

defendants reflect that they received the documents constituting service on March 12, 

2020. Dkts. 32-1; 32-2. This constituted service on defendants pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) and 4(f)(1), while the certificate of service was the means 

by which plaintiffs proved service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l)(2)(A). 

See Ackourey v. Noblehouse Custom Tailors, No. 13-cv-2319, 2013 WL 60601365, at *4 

(E.D. Penn. Nov. 15, 2013) (“Typically, proof of service under the Convention comes in 

the form of a certificate issued by the Central Authority of the receiving state. . . . 

Moreover, failure of proof of service does not affect the validity of service.”).

Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

represent that the parties are conferring on a reasonable response date to the pleadings. 

Dkt. 40 at 1 n.1. The parties may file an appropriate stipulation according to the Civil 

Local Rules; however, the court is not inclined to extend defendants’ time to respond by 

120 days.

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion to set aside 

default and DENIES defendants’ motion to enlarge time to respond. Dkt. 24. Because 

plaintiffs have moved to withdraw their motion for alternative service, the court DENIES 

plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service. Dkt. 29.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2020

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 3 of 3