Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01491/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01491-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amazon Technologies, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Amazon.com, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Manoj Goel
Counter Claimant
Pionera Inc.
Counter Claimant
Ring LLC
Counter 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, AMAZON 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Nevada 

corporation, and RING LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PIONERA INC., a California corporation, 

MANOJ GOEL, an individual, and DOES 

1-50, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01491 DJC AC PS 

AMENDED ORDER 

 This case was initially filed against Manoj Goel, an individual, and a corporation, Pionera, 

Inc. ECF No. 1. Neither party initially responded to the complaint and plaintiff moved for 

default judgment. ECF No. 15. Goel, appearing in pro se, opposed the default judgment motion, 

explaining that he is the owner of Pionera, that he does not have money for this lawsuit, and 

asking that the case be dismissed. ECF No. 18. The court advised Goel that it would vacate the 

entry of default against him individually, but that Pionera remained in default because a corporate 

entity must have representation. ECF No. 31. Default judgment was entered as to Pionera on 

September 26, 2023. ECF No. 33. 

Case 2:22-cv-01491-AC Document 42 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 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 

2 

 On October 31, 2023, plaintiff requested that the Clerk of Court again enter default 

against Goel. ECF No. 34. The request informed the court that Goel was refusing to participate 

in the litigation and noted that he had failed to timely respond to the complaint. Id. at 3. The 

Clerk of Court entered default against Goel on November 2, 2023. ECF No. 35. Goel responded 

to the entry of default with a letter, reiterating to the court that he does not have the money to 

participate in litigation, and asking the court to vacate the entry of default. ECF No. 36. 

Defendant is informed that financial inability to retain counsel does not excuse a party 

from participation in litigation. 

On November 17, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for discovery set to be heard on December 

20, 2023. ECF Nos. 39, 40. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), Goel was required to file an 

opposition or notice of non-opposition within 14 days of the motion being filed. Goel did not file 

any opposition or respond to the motion in any way. Plaintiff’s motion indicates that Goel is 

refusing to participate in this case, including a failure to participate in the required Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(f) conference. ECF No. 39. Defendant Goel is informed that failure to participate in this case 

may result in legal consequences including default judgment. The court will not vacate the entry 

of default entered by the Clerk of Court at this time. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall show cause, in 

writing, within 14 days, why his failure to respond to the pending motion should not result in a 

recommendation that sanctions be entered against him. Defendant’s filing must include a 

declaration that he will participate in a 26(f) conference with plaintiff’s counsel. If defendant 

Goel fails to respond, the court will recommend sanctions, up to and including entry of default 

judgment against him, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 110 and 183. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 3, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01491-AC Document 42 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 2