Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01106/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01106-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Equifax
Defendant
Experian
Defendant
IQ Data International Inc
Defendant
Virgie B. Schneider
Plaintiff
Richard L. Schneider
Plaintiff
Transunion
Defendant
Villas at Villagio
Defendant

Document Text:

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

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGIE B. SCHNEIDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VILLAS AT VILLAGIO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY I.Q. DATA 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION

RESPONSE DUE OCTOBER 21, 2015

On September 16, 2015, I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. filed a motion to dismiss. 

(ECF No. 48.) On October 6, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF 

No. 55.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause why I.Q. DATA 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. should not be dismissed from this action.

I.

BACKGROUND

This action was originally filed by Plaintiffs Virgie B. Schneider and Richard L. 

Schneider (“Plaintiffs”) in the Superior Court of California for the County of Stanislaus on June 

16, 2015. Plaintiffs’ complaint named Villas at Villagio, IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC1, 

 

1

It appears that the precise punctuation and capitalization of the name of Defendant IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL 

INC is of significance, for reasons which made clear below. Accordingly, the Court reproduces the name exactly as 

it appears in the complaint filed by Plaintiffs in state court.

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 58 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Transunion, Experian, Equifax, and Does 1-20 as defendants.

On July 17, 2015, Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) filed a 

notice of removal. (ECF No. 1.) In the notice of removal, Experian stated that it was their 

understanding that Defendant IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC and TransUnion had not yet 

been served, but that Villas at Villagio and Equifax, Inc. (“Equifax”) had consented to removal.

On August 21, 2015, an entity named “I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC.2” filed a 

separate notice of removal which triggered the opening of a separate action in this Court, Virgie 

B. Schneider, et al., v. Villas at Villagio, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01302-TLN-MJS. This entity, 

I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., later filed a notice of related action informing the Court 

that the same state court action had been previously removed to federal court.

On August 28, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause to determine why the same 

state court action had been removed on two separate occasions, triggering the opening of two 

separate federal actions. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff Richard L. Schneider filed a response on 

September 1, 2015. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff’s response states that I.Q. DATA 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. was not named as a defendant or served in this action. Plaintiff 

explains that there may be at least three entities with similar names: I Q Data International Inc., 

IQ Data International, Inc., and I.Q. Data International, Inc. Plaintiff’s position was that the I.Q. 

DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. entity which filed the notice of removal was not the correct 

entity which Plaintiff intended to sue.

On September 15, 2015, the Court consolidated the two cases, dismissing the latter-filed 

matter and permitting the parties to refile any pending motions from the dismissed matter in this 

action.

Plaintiffs filed a request for entry of default against Defendant IQ DATA 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. on August 30, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Court issued an 

order denying entry of default. The Court acknowledged that the two names for the entity were 

 

2 Again, the Court reproduces the name of this entity precisely as it appears in the August 21, 2015 notice of 

removal. Notably, IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC and I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. are slightly 

different, with the latter name including periods (“.”) after the “I” and “Q” and a comma (“,”) after 

“INTERNATIONAL.”

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 58 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 5
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

3

superficially different. However, Plaintiffs hailed I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. into 

this action by sending I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. a “Notice and Acknowledgment of 

Receipt” form, and filing I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC.’s Acknowledgment of Receipt 

as proof of the execution of the summons on August 17, 2015. (ECF No. 29.)

I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 2015. 

(ECF No. 48.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition on October 6, 2015, which, among other arguments, 

argues that I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. cannot move to dismiss this action because 

they are not a proper defendant in this action.

II.

DISCUSSION

In their opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs argue that I.Q. DATA 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. has not been sued by Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs have not raised any 

claims against them, and that Plaintiffs have not served them. If I.Q. DATA 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. is not the correct entity named as a defendant in this action, they 

should be dismissed from this action. Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiffs to show cause 

why I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. should not be dismissed from this action.

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention that I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. was never 

served by Plaintiffs, it appears that Plaintiffs mailed a Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt 

form to I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 

415.30. Section 415.30 permits service of a summons by mail if the defendant served executes a 

written acknowledgment upon receipt of the summons. A person named Michael O’Meara 

executed a written acknowledgment of receipt. Michael O’Meara presumably executed the 

written acknowledgment as a proper agent for service of process on behalf of I.Q. DATA 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., as the form appears identical to the one attached to the Notice of 

Removal filed by I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

It appears that Plaintiffs intended to mail the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt 

form to IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC but it was received by I.Q. DATA 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a wholly separate and unrelated entity accord to Plaintiffs. A rational 

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 58 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

and prudent attorney in this type of situation, having hailed the wrong entity into court, would 

voluntarily dismiss the incorrect entity from the suit as soon as possible, in order to avoid 

unwarranted burden and expense borne by this case of mistaken identity. Plaintiffs did not 

respond rationally or prudently. Accordingly, the Court will now require Plaintiffs to show 

cause why this “incorrect” entity, I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., should not be 

dismissed from this action.

The Court also notes that it is unclear whether the “correct” entity, IQ DATA 

INTERNATIONAL INC, has been properly served by Plaintiffs. The Notice and 

Acknowledgment of Receipt form filed on August 17, 2015 appears to be invalid as proof of 

service for IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC because it appears the written acknowledgment 

was executed by a representative from I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. A representative 

from I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. cannot validly accept service on behalf of the 

wholly separate and unrelated entity, IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC. Plaintiffs also filed a 

“Proof of Service” on July 26, 2015. (ECF No. 13.) However, this does not constitute valid 

proof of service of the summons and complaint, as it only pertains to the service of a “Notice of 

motion and motion to serve IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC through the CA SOS”3and the 

form itself states “Do not use this proof of service to show service of a Summons and 

complaint.”4 Plaintiffs’ opposition indicates that IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC has not yet 

been validly served because Plaintiffs are still investigating whether the entity still exists.

Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiffs to file any and all proof that the correct 

entity, IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC, has been properly served with the summons and 

complaint in this action. If IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC has not yet been served, 

Plaintiffs shall provide a brief summary of Plaintiffs’ attempts to serve IQ DATA 

 

3 California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10(d) and California Corporations Code § 1702 permit service of process 

for a corporation upon the California Secretary of State, if authorized by the state court upon a showing that the 

corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence by other methods. There is no indication that Plaintiff had 

validly served IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC under this provision.

4 The Court also notes that the Proof of Service form is a state court form, yet Plaintiffs filled it out with information 

pertaining to this Court, a federal court. It is unclear why this form was even filed with the Court in the first place, 

but the Court advises Plaintiff to use federal court forms for federal court filings.

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 58 Filed 10/15/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

INTERNATIONAL INC and an estimate as to how long it will take to execute service. The 

Court notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) establishes a 120 day time limit to serve a 

defendant.

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs shall SHOW CAUSE why I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

should not be dismissed from this action because it mistakenly appeared to defend 

the claims against IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL INC, a wholly separate and 

unrelated entity according to Plaintiffs;

2. Plaintiffs shall either A) file a proof of service showing that IQ DATA 

INTERNATIONAL INC has been properly served, or B) inform the Court of 

what efforts Plaintiffs have made to effectuate service on IQ DATA 

INTERNATIONAL INC and provide an estimate as to how long it will take to 

properly serve them; and

3. Plaintiffs response to this order shall be filed no later than October 21, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 58 Filed 10/15/15 Page 5 of 5