Salim Sindhi v. Kunal Raina
905 F.3d 327
5th Cir.2018Background
- Sindhi sued former employee Raina for allegedly misappropriating CMS source code and creating a competing business; claims included copyright infringement and trade-secret violations.
- Sindhi served Raina in India via the Hague Convention; Raina filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but failed to comply with multiple N.D. Tex. local rules (certificate of interested persons, pro hac vice admission, and retention of local counsel).
- The district court issued orders giving Raina time to comply, then warned that failure to comply would lead to striking pleadings and default; Raina did not comply and the court struck his motion and entered interlocutory default and an interlocutory permanent injunction.
- Raina moved to set aside the default (Rule 60(b) and later Rule 55(c)); the district court denied relief, found minimum contacts with Texas, and later entered a final default judgment and permanent injunction.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court in all respects, finding Raina waived many arguments and failed to show grounds under Rule 55(c) or Rule 60(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry of interlocutory/default for failure to comply with court rules | Sindhi: default appropriate after repeated noncompliance | Raina: default improper; did not articulate good-cause basis to set aside | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; Raina willfully failed to comply and delayed challenge |
| Setting aside final default judgment | Sindhi: judgment stands; Rule 60(b) relief not shown | Raina: alleged inconsistencies/judicial estoppel and other 60(b) grounds justify vacatur | Affirmed: Raina failed to raise or prove grounds under Rule 60(b) and waived some arguments |
| Personal jurisdiction | Sindhi: Texas courts have specific jurisdiction via ongoing contractual contacts | Raina: lack of minimum contacts; challenged jurisdiction | Affirmed: district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction; Raina’s challenge waived or inadequately briefed |
| Permanent injunction | Sindhi: injunction warranted after default and merits | Raina: challenged injunction on appeal | Affirmed: Raina failed to brief or support challenge; issue waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard and policy preference to decide cases on merits vs. defaults)
- In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 742 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2014) (discussing competing policies relevant to default judgments)
- Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2000) (standards for reviewing default entries and factual findings)
- Effjohn Int’l Cruise Holdings, Inc. v. A & L Sales, Inc., 346 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2003) (good-cause inquiry for setting aside default under Rule 55)
- Tr. Co. of La. v. N.N.P. Inc., 104 F.3d 1478 (5th Cir. 1997) (final judgment on appeal preserves review of intertwined interlocutory orders)
- LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2007) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)