Jes Solar Company Limited, a South Korean Corporation; v. Tong Soo Chung

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JES SOLAR COMPANY LIMITED, a
South Korean Corporation; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
TONG SOO CHUNG,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-15504
D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00626-DCB
District of Arizona,
Tucson
ORDER AMENDING
MEMORANDUM
JES SOLAR COMPANY LIMITED, a
South Korean Corporation; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
TONG SOO CHUNG,
Defendant,
and
SUNGCHIN KIM, referenced in complaint
as S. Chin Kim,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-16091
D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00626-DCB
Before: GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SANDS,* District Judge.
* The Honorable W. Louis Sands, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The memorandum disposition in the above-captioned matter filed on
February 12, 2018 is amended as follows:
At page 8, lines 7–10, change <Here, because the inadequate service
provided Chung and Kim with a meritorious defense and established that they were
not at fault for the defaults, the district court abused its discretion in failing to set
aside the defaults. See id. at 463–64.> to <Here, because vacating the default
judgment would cause no “greater harm than simply that relief would delay
resolution of the case,” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir.
2009), and the inadequate service provided Chung and Kim with a meritorious
defense and established that they were not at fault for the defaults, the district court
abused its discretion in failing to set aside the defaults. See Falk, 739 F.2d at 463–
64.>.
The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Gould
and Watford have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge
Sands has so recommended. The full court has been advised of the petition for
rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the
matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing and the
petition for rehearing en banc are denied.
No future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

-- 2 of 2 --