Hodge v. NAPA Genuine Auto Parts

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Najib A Hodge,
Plaintiff,
v.
NAPA Genuine Auto Parts,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-03101-PHX-JAT
ORDER
For the reasons stated in this Court’s orders at Docs. 35 and 45, Plaintiff was given
leave to file a second amended complaint. On July 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint.
Default was entered against Defendant NAPA Genuine Auto Parts (“NAPA”) on
December 29, 2025. Typically, when a party is in default, they do not have to be served.
Fed. R. Civ. P 5(a)(2) (“No service is required on a party who is in default for failing to
appear”). “But a pleading that asserts a new claim for relief against such a party must be
served on that party under Rule 4.” Id. Because the second amended complaint asserts a
new claim for relief, it must be served on NAPA even though NAPA is in default.
To initiate a case, Rule 4 requires service of the summons and complaint by the
means listed in Rule 4. However, service of all filings after initial Rule 4 service can be
made by “sending it to a registered user by filing it with the court’s electronic-filing system
or sending it by other electronic means that the person consented to in writing—in either
of which events service is complete upon filing or sending….” Fed. R. Civ. P 5(b)(2)(E).
Case 2:26-cv-03101-JAT Document 47 Filed 07/17/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Here, after default was entered, counsel entered an appearance for NAPA. (Doc.
36). Counsel received, through the Court’s electronic filing system, the second amended
complaint. Therefore, the Court deems NAPA to have been served with the second
amended complaint.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the entry of default (Doc. 25) is vacated because default was
not entered on the operative complaint (Doc. 46).1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NAPA shall answer or otherwise respond to the
second amended complaint (Doc. 46) by July 30, 2026.2
Dated this 17th day of July, 2026.
1 See Viznai v. United Homes of N.Y., Inc., No. 07 Civ. 4173(ERK)(SMG), 2009 WL
931178, at *2, 2 n. 1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2009) (noting that “the filing of an amended
complaint would render the defaults of the [defendants] a nullity” and admonishing
plaintiffs that “[i]f plaintiffs file an amended complaint ... plaintiffs must seek new default
judgments against [defendants] if they again fail to appear”).
2 If NAPA fails to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint by this
deadline, Plaintiff may again move for entry of default.
Case 2:26-cv-03101-JAT Document 47 Filed 07/17/26 Page 2 of 2