Lu v. Enigma MPC, Inc. et al
| Bin Lu |
| Enigma MPC, Inc., Guy Zyskind and Can Kisagun |
| 3:2023cv02152 |
| May 3, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Laurel Beeler |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
ORDER REGARDING SERVICE AND CONSENT. There are several issues to be addressed before the court can resolve the motion to dismiss filed yesterday. First, the individual defendants, Can Kisagun and Guy Zyskind, have not appeared yet. All parties, even non-appearing parties, must consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction before the court can rule on a dispositive motion. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-05 (9th Cir. 2017). A defendant's consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction does not waive any defenses, including a defense of lack of service. See, e.g., Feng v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, No. 19-cv-06877-LB, 2019 WL 7194475, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2019); Harper v. City of Cortez, No. 14-cv-02984-KLM, 2015 WL 4113825, at *3 (D. Colo. July 8, 2015); Geiche v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. C 08-3233 JL, 2009 WL 1948830, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2009). Thus, even if defendants have not otherwise generally appeared, they can consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction and the court can decide the pending motion. Cf. Williams, 875 F.3d at 503-05. In any case, the court must wait for those consents before deciding the motion. Second, Mr. Kisagun has been served and his response to the complaint was due on June 12, 2023. Proof of Serv. - ECF No. 12; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). No response was filed. Third, the docket does not reflect service on Mr. Zyskind. He is allegedly "a citizen of Israel who does not reside in the Northern District of California." Compl. - ECF No. 1 at 2. Assuming that he is a foreign defendant, the court may "set reasonable time limits" for serving him (though it's still early). Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, No. C 11-03194 WHA, 2014 WL 309589, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014). The court thus asks the plaintiff and Enigma to file, by July 6, 2023, a short joint statement on how they would like to proceed. The existing briefing schedule could proceed and the hearing could be deferred until all parties appear or default (and any defaulting defendant can be severed so the court can proceed). Alternatively, the court could deny the motion without prejudice to its being re-noticed (on the ordinary five-week schedule) by Enigma's filing a one-page notice after all parties have appeared. Or the case could be reassigned to a district judge. The parties may also propose a different approach - or if they disagree, they may set out their positions in the joint statement. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2023)
|
| Filing 20 Request for Judicial Notice re #19 MOTION to Dismiss filed byEnigma MPC, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Jonathan A. Patchen In Support of Enigma MPC, Inc.'s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit J, #12 Exhibit K, #13 Exhibit L, #14 Exhibit M, #15 Exhibit N, #16 Proposed Order Granting Enigma MPC, Inc.'s Request for Judicial Notice)(Related document(s) #19 ) (Patchen, Jonathan) (Filed on 6/29/2023) |
| Filing 19 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Enigma MPC, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 8/10/2023 09:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Responses due by 7/13/2023. Replies due by 7/20/2023. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Enigma MPC, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss)(Patchen, Jonathan) (Filed on 6/29/2023) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Appearance by Naiara Toker obo Defendant Enigma MPC, Inc. (Toker, Naiara) (Filed on 6/16/2023) |
| Filing 17 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Enigma MPC, Inc... (Patchen, Jonathan) (Filed on 6/15/2023) |
| Filing 16 CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Defendant Enigma MPC, Inc. shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: #http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. Consent/Declination due by 6/22/2023. (ejk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2023) |
| Filing 15 STIPULATION to Extend the Time for Defendant Enigma MPC, Inc. to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint filed by Enigma MPC, Inc. and Bin Lu. (Patchen, Jonathan) (Filed on 6/8/2023) Modified on 6/9/2023 (anj, COURT STAFF). |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel P. Martin (Martin, Daniel) (Filed on 6/8/2023) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Alan Patchen (Patchen, Jonathan) (Filed on 6/8/2023) |
| Filing 12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Bin Lu. Can Kisagun served on 5/22/2023, answer due 6/12/2023. (Szeto, Priscilla) (Filed on 5/25/2023) |
| Filing 11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Bin Lu. Enigma MPC, Inc. served on 5/18/2023, answer due 6/8/2023. (Szeto, Priscilla) (Filed on 5/25/2023) |
| Filing 10 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Bin Lu.. (Szeto, Priscilla) (Filed on 5/17/2023) |
|
Filing 9
Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting #7 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Matthew E. Brown representing Plaintiff. (ejk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2023)
|
|
Filing 8
Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting #6 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Matthew G. Lindenbaum representing Plaintiff. (ejk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2023)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 317, receipt number ACANDC-18265894.) filed by Bin Lu. (Brown, Matthew) (Filed on 5/15/2023) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 317, receipt number ACANDC-18264058.) filed by Bin Lu. (Lindenbaum, Matthew) (Filed on 5/15/2023) |
| Filing 5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 7/27/2023. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/3/2023 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (jml, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2023) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Enigma MPC, Inc., Can Kisagun. (jml, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2023) |
| Filing 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 5/17/2023. (bar, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2023) |
| Filing 2 Proposed Summons. (Szeto, Priscilla) (Filed on 5/3/2023) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACANDC-18228633.). Filed byBin Lu. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Bin Lu, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Szeto, Priscilla) (Filed on 5/3/2023) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
