Red River Valley Trust v. C. O. Carter

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a court considering whether to enter a default judgment may dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of personal jurisdiction
• distinguishing the court’s role on default judgment from asserting a defense on behalf of a litigant
• finding no basis to pierce the 16 The Moving Defendants argue that Habas’s position that the contract was formed over an email exchange suffers from three independently fatal defects: 1
• “[W]hen a court is considering whether to enter a default judgment, it may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of personal jurisdiction.” (quoting Im re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999))
• “[W]hen a court is considering whether to enter a default judgment, it may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of personal jurisdiction.” (quoting In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999)).
• [W]hen a court is considering whether to enter a default judgment, it may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of personal jurisdiction.” (alteration in original) (quoting Jn re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).