Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02419/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02419-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

C 14-02419 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

JEFFREY WILENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOMATTIC INC, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 14-02419 LB

ORDER (1) CONTINUING THE

HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT AND (2) REQUIRING

SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF No. 58]

On May 25, 2014, Plaintiff Jeffrey Wilens filed a complaint against Defendants Automattic, Inc.,

TLDS LLC, Google, Inc., and Does 1-100 for trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1), and for violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act,

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). (Original Complaint, ECF No. 1.1

) Automattic, TLDS, and Google have been

dismissed from this action, leaving only Doe 1 as a Defendant to this action. On February 5, 2015,

the court granted Mr. Wilens’s motion to serve Doe 1 by email. (2/5/2015 Order, ECF No. 53.) He

did, and Doe 1 failed to respond. (Certificate of Service, ECF No. 54; Affidavit, ECF No. 55.) 

Thus, upon Mr. Wilens’s motion, the Clerk of the Court entered Doe 1’s default on March 3, 2015. 

(Entry of Default, ECF No. 57.) 

Now, Mr. Wilens has filed a motion for default judgment. (Motion, ECF No. 58.) First, the

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 59 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-02419 LB

ORDER 2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

court notes that Mr. Wilens noticed it for hearing within 35 days of the filing date in violation of

Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). Accordingly, the court continues the hearing on Mr. Wilens’s motion from

April 16, 2015 to April 23, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States District

Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.

Second, it does not appear that Mr. Wilens served Doe 1, by email or otherwise, with the motion. 

Under the circumstances, the court directs Mr. Wilens to serve Doe 1 by email with his motion and

this order. See In re Roxford Foods, Inc., 12 F.3d 875, 880 (9th Cir. 1993) (“While it is true that

‘[t]he failure to provide 55(b)(2) notice, if the notice is required, is a serious procedural irregularity

that usually justifies setting aside a default judgment or reversing for the failure to do so,’ Wilson,

564 F.2d at 369, notice is only required where the party has made an appearance. ‘The appearance

need not necessarily be a formal one, i.e., one involving a submission or presentation to the court. In

limited situations, informal contacts between the parties have sufficed when the party in default has

thereby demonstrated a clear purpose to defend the suit.’ Id.”). Mr. Wilens must do this by March

18, 2015. Mr. Wilens then must file a proof of service by March 19, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02419-LHK Document 59 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 2