# Sandeep Roy Chauhan v. Google Inc.

> District Court, N.D. California · August 17, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10072514

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** August 17, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10072514

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10072514. Public record. Not legal advice.