Opinion

Sandeep Roy Chauhan v. Google Inc.

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Aug 17, 2022
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDEEP ROY CHAUHAN, Case No. 21-cv-09201-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT

GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 28

Defendant.

On June 6, 2022, Sandeep Roy Chauhan requested an entry of default against defendant

Google, LLC, and the Clerk entered default based on Google’s failure to respond to Chauhan’s

complaint. Dkt. No. 23. On June 8, 2022, Chauhan filed his First Amended Complaint asserting

new claims against Google. Dkt. No. 25. On June 14, 2022, Chauhan then asked the Court to

enter a default judgment as to the claims in this amended complaint. Dkt. No. 28. Chauhan has

subsequently filed additional exhibits to his First Amended Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 30, 32.

“In exercising its discretion to enter default judgment, a court must first find that it has

jurisdiction over the action and defendant, and that the party against whom default judgment is

requested was adequately served.” uSens, Inc. v. Chongqing Junma New Energy Automobile Co.,

No. 19-CV-00315-BLF, 2022 WL 410938, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2022). The First Amended

Complaint asserts new claims against Google, and so it must be served on Google even though

Google has failed to appear in the case thus far. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(2). Contrary to Chauhan’s

certificate of service, electronic filing does not constitute service upon parties who have not yet

appeared. See Dkt. No 27. Chauhan’s motion for default judgment is therefore denied.

The Court is additionally skeptical that Google was properly served with the original

complaint. The returned summons for Chauhan’s original complaint does not show that an

officer, managing or general agent, or another authorized agent received service of process nor

that service was consistent with California state law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4h), 4(e)(1).

Chauhan is proceeding in forma pauperis, and so the government must serve Google with

the First Amended Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Chauhan is

advised to prepare a new proposed summons identifying Google’s designated agent for service

of process so that Google can be properly served. Once the proposed summons is submitted, the

U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California is ordered to serve, without prepayment of

fees, a copy of the First Amended Complaint and any attachments upon Google.

If he has not already done so, Chauhan is encouraged to obtain a copy of the Handbook

for Pro Se Litigants.! He is also encouraged to contact the Pro Se Program for assistance.

Information regarding the Program can be found at https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-selitigants/the-

federal-pro-se-program-at-the-san-jose-courthouse/.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2022 =

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

' The handbook is available at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-

content/uploads/2020/02/Pro_Se_Handbook_2020ed_links_12-2021_MBB.pdf.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.