Shanghai Automation Instrument Co., Ltd. v. Kuei

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that there was no excusable neglect when defendants were properly served 17 with the complaint, notice of entry of default, and papers in support of the plaintiff’s motion 18 for entry of default judgment
• noting that 3 default cannot be attributed to excusable neglect after proper service
• finding that default “cannot be attributed to excusable neglect” 24 where the defendant was “properly served with the Complaint, the notice of entry of 25 default, as well as the papers in support of the instant motion”
• finding 11 no excusable neglect because the defendants “were properly served with the Complaint, the notice of 12 entry of default”
• finding no excusable neglect because the defendants 22 “were properly served with the Complaint, the notice of entry of default”
• finding no excusable neglect because the defendants 25 “were properly served with the Complaint, the notice of entry of default”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).