Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01106/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01106-1/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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

ECF NO. 38

On August 30, 2015, Plaintiff Richard L. Schneider filed a request for entry of default 

against Defendant IQ Data International (“IQ Data”). (ECF No. 38.) IQ Data filed an opposition 

on August 31, 2015. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff Richard L. Schneider filed a reply on September 7, 

2015. (ECF No. 43.)

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 INC, 

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 IQ Data and TransUnion had not yet been served, but that Villas at Villagio 

and Equifax, Inc. (“Equifax”) had consented to removal.

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 49 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 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

2

On August 21, 2015, Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc. filed a separate notice of 

removal which triggered the opening of a separate action, Virgie B. Schneider, et al., v. Villas at 

Villagio, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01302-TLN-MJS. On August 28, 2015, IQ Data filed a notice 

of related action and informed the Court that Plaintiffs’ counsel had informed them that the same 

state court action had been previously removed to federal court. On August 28, 2015, IQ Data 

filed a motion to dismiss in the other action.

On August 28, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause regarding the two 

separately removed actions. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff Richard L. Schneider filed a response on 

September 1, 2015. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff’s response states that IQ Data 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.

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 contend that “IQ Data International, Inc.” is the proper defendant in this action 

and “I.Q. Data International, Inc.” is not the proper defendant. It appears Plaintiffs contend that 

the IQ Data entity which filed the notice of removal in the related action and the motion to 

dismiss is not the entity Plaintiffs intended to sue. However, regardless of whether IQ Data is 

the “correct” IQ Data, it appears that Plaintiffs dragged this entity into court by serving them 

with forms related to the service of summons in the state court action. The proof of service for 

IQ Data International, Inc. filed in this case by Plaintiff on August 17, 2015 (see ECF No. 29) 

appears to be the same Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt—Civil form attached to the 

notice of removal filed by IQ Data in the related case. Accordingly, if the IQ Data that appeared 

in the related action is not the correct IQ Data, it would appear the fault lies with Plaintiffs for 

serving the incorrect entity. The IQ Data entity which filed the notice of removal in the related 

action appears to be the IQ Data which was served by Plaintiff. If this IQ Data entity is the 

wrong entity, Plaintiff should not have served them with the summons and complaint.

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 49 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 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

3

In any case, it does not appear that entry of default against Defendant IQ Data 

International, Inc. is appropriate in this case. If Plaintiffs served the wrong entity, it would be 

improper to enter default against the correct entity since Plaintiffs have submitted no proof that 

the correct entity had been served and received notice of this action. If Plaintiffs served the 

correct entity, it would be improper to enter default against this entity because it made an 

appearance in this action and filed a responsive pleading in the related action. Any failure to file 

a responsive pleading in this action appears to be caused by IQ Data not receiving notice of the 

removal.

Accordingly, the Court will not grant Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default. Plaintiffs 

brought Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc. into this action and this entity has filed a 

responsive pleading. To the extent that Plaintiffs believe that the wrong entity has been served, it 

is up to Plaintiffs to secure dismissal of this entity via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and 

substitute the correct entity as defendant. Otherwise, this action will proceed against the entity 

served by Plaintiffs.

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default against Defendant IQ 

Data International, Inc. is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 49 Filed 09/16/15 Page 3 of 3