Narrative Opinion Summary
Leo Stoller and U.S.A. Sports, Inc. appeal the district court's default judgment against them in favor of Hi-Tec, which was issued due to Stoller's failure to respond to the complaint for declaratory relief within the legal timeframe. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the case for abuse of discretion. Stoller argues that the default judgment should be set aside on the grounds of improper venue in the Eastern District of California, improper service of process, and lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court rejects these arguments, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) regarding venue, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and California Civil Procedure Codes § 417.10 and § 417.20 concerning service of process, and Bancroft Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc. regarding personal jurisdiction. The court affirms the district court's decision. The ruling is not to be published and cannot be cited by other courts except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review for Abuse of Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviews the district court's decision for abuse of discretion under its jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the case for abuse of discretion.
Default Judgment Due to Failure to Respondsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court issued a default judgment against Leo Stoller and U.S.A. Sports, Inc. due to Stoller's failure to respond to the complaint for declaratory relief within the legal timeframe.
Reasoning: Leo Stoller and U.S.A. Sports, Inc. appeal the district court's default judgment against them in favor of Hi-Tec, which was issued due to Stoller's failure to respond to the complaint for declaratory relief within the legal timeframe.
Improper Venue Challengesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Stoller argued that the default judgment should be set aside due to improper venue, which the appellate court rejected by citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Reasoning: Stoller argues that the default judgment should be set aside on the grounds of improper venue in the Eastern District of California... The appellate court rejects these arguments, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) regarding venue...
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's ruling is designated as non-publishable and cannot be cited by other courts except as provided in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reasoning: The ruling is not to be published and cannot be cited by other courts except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Personal Jurisdiction Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Stoller's argument on lack of personal jurisdiction was rejected based on the precedent set in Bancroft Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc.
Reasoning: Stoller argues that the default judgment should be set aside on the grounds of... lack of personal jurisdiction... The appellate court rejects these arguments, citing... Bancroft Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc. regarding personal jurisdiction.
Service of Process Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court dismissed the argument of improper service of process by referencing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and California Civil Procedure Codes § 417.10 and § 417.20.
Reasoning: Stoller argues that the default judgment should be set aside on the grounds of... improper service of process... The appellate court rejects these arguments, citing... Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and California Civil Procedure Codes § 417.10 and § 417.20 concerning service of process...