Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in National Australia Bank Ltd x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Civil Rights: Other | California Central
Default Judgment
DEFAULT JUDGMENT - REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FOLLOWING RELIEF: 1. An order directing that Defendant's property located at 136 Gardners Road, Sydney which Plaintiff submits is used to store and repurpose stolen and obsolete hardware in furtherance of criminal activity, thereby directly undermining U.S. national security interests-and Defendant's digital assets be placed under the control of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Plaintiff further submits that the stolen and obsolete hardware is repeatedly used to defraud various U.S. original equipment manufacturers through fraudulent Return Merchandise Authorization activities. 2. A determination that defendant Equinix Inc. leads an organized criminal enterprise that has defrauded United States financial systems in connection with securities, taxation, workers' compensation insurance, and banking, including conduct governed, where the statutory elements are satisfied, by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1344, 1348, and 1920, and that Defendant failed to make workers' compensation payments required by law. 3. An award of damages and other relief for the substantial physical and financial harm that Plaintiff submits was caused by Defendant's violations of the federal forced-labor and trafficking provisions, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 and 1590, under the civil-remedy provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1595. 4. Any other relief the Court deems necessary and appropriate to address the continuing threat posed by Equinix Inc. and the criminal enterprise that Plaintiff submits it leads filed by plaintiff Sajjad Nasir. (lc)
For Order
IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Order Re: Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal 33 . Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs "Notice of Appeal" concerning the "Clerk's decision to not issue summons pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (ECF No. 33.) On August 20, 2026, Plaintiff attempted to request the Clerk to issue summons for each of the three Defendants. (ECF Nos. 9-11.) The Court struck Plaintiff's requests because the summons captiondid not match the Complaint verbatim. (ECF No. 12.) Specifically, the Complaint lists the Defendants as "Equinix-DC, Inc. (2210584)," "National Australia Bank," and "China Unicom." (ECF No. 1.) The summons caption must list the Defendants' names exactly as it appears in the Complaint in order for the Clerk to issue summons. In other words, the summons caption should also list "''Equinix-DC,Inc. (2210584)," ''National Australia Bank," and "China Unicom." Instead, Plaintiff's request to the Clerk to issue summons for Defendant Equinix improperly listed "Equinix-DC, Inc. (2210584)," "National Australia Bank Ltd," and "China Unicom Hong Kong Ltd" in the summons caption. (ECF Nos. 9.) And in Plaintiff's request to the Clerk to issue summons for Defendants China Unicom and National Aushalia Bank, Plaintiff improperly listed "Equinix Inc,""National Australia Bank Ltd," and "China Unicom" in the summons caption. (ECF Nos. 10-11.) The Defendants' names in the summons caption thus did not match verbatim the Defendants' names as listed in the Complaint, and the Court advised that the requested summons would not issue until the deficiencies were corrected and re-filed. (ECF No. 12.) On August 25, 2026, Plaintiff again attempted to request the Clerk to issue summons for Defendant Equinix, this time improperly listing "Equinix Inc," "National Australia Bank Ltd," and "China Unicom Hong Kong Ltd," as the parties' names in the summons caption. (ECF No. 17.) TheCourt struck Plaintiff's request for the same deficiencies- that the summons caption did not match the Complaint verbatim. (ECF No. 18.) On August 27, 2026, Plaintiff again requested the Clerk to issue summons for Defendant Equinix, this time properly listing the parties' names in the summons caption. (ECF No. 20.) The Clerk thus issued summons as to Equinix. (Id.) Summons has not been issued for remaining Defendants China Unicom and National Australia Bank because Plaintiff has not requested the Clerk to issue summons for Defendants Unicom and National Australia Bank using the correct summons caption. In order for the Clerk to issue summons for Defendants China Unicom and National Australia Bank, Plaintiff must refile his requests properly listing "Eguinix-DC, Inc. (2210584)," "National Australia Bank," and "China Unicom" as the parties' names in the summons caption, as Plaintiff did in his request to issue summons for Defendant Equinix (see ECF No. 20). The Clerk will not issues summons for Defendants China Unicom and National Austrnlia Bank until Plaintiff cures the deficiencies in the summons caption. (lc)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.