Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Judang Team LLC et al

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
META PLATFORMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDANG TEAM LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-05156-TSH
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) brings this action against Defendants Judang Team
LLC (“Judang”), Perfeos LLC (“Perfeos”), Jot & Journeys (“J&J”), and Antonio Jose Liévano
(collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants operated a deceptive and misleading
advertising scheme on Meta’s social media platforms and improperly obtained advertising credit
lines from Meta. ECF No. 1. On January 20, 2026, the Court granted Counsel’s1 motion to
withdraw as counsel for all Defendants on the condition that Counsel remain counsel of record to
serve all filed documents on Defendants until a substitution of counsel is filed. ECF No. 57. For
all such documents, the Court ordered Counsel to e-file proof of service within three business days
of filing. Id.
On February 5, 2026, Defendants Perfeos, J&J, and Liévano filed an answer to the
complaint through new counsel. ECF No. 59. There has been no appearance by new counsel for
Judang.
Despite the Court’s order at ECF No. 57 ordering Counsel to serve Defendants with all
filed documents within three business days, Counsel did not serve Judang with the answer by
1 “Counsel” refers collectively to James C. Huber, Bradley C. Crosley, and Darren Cruz. See ECF
No. 57.
Case 3:25-cv-05156-TSH Document 74 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 3

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
February 10, 2026. The Court then issued an order on February 13, 2026, reminding Counsel of
their service obligation and directing Counsel to serve Judang with the answer by February 19,
2026. ECF No. 60. On February 19, 2026, Counsel filed an affidavit indicating they had effected
service on Perfeos.2 ECF No. 61.
On February 20, 2026, the Court ordered that default be entered against Judang. ECF No.
64. In this order, the Court reminded Counsel of their service obligation and ordered Counsel to
serve Judang with the default order no later than February 25, 2026. Id. Also on February 20,
2026, the Court issued an order regarding substitution of counsel and a case management order.
See ECF Nos. 63, 65. Counsel has not filed an attestation that they served Judang with the
documents at ECF Nos. 63, 64, and 65, despite their service obligation and the Court’s prior
orders.
Since February 20, 2026, several more filings have occurred on the docket, including the
Clerk’s Notice of Entry of Default against Judang. See ECF Nos. 68, 70, 71, 72. The Court
should not have to hunt Counsel down every time a filing occurs to ensure that Counsel comply
with their obligation to serve Judang.
“Civil contempt . . . consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order
by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” Inst. of Cetacean
Rsch. v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 774 F.3d 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
“When there has been contempt, a court can levy contempt sanctions pursuant to its inherent
powers.” Dionisio v. Midland Credit Mgmt., No. 1:19-cv-0190-DAD-JLT, 2019 WL 2420403, at
*2 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) (citing Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539 (1925)). A
“district court has wide latitude in determining whether there has been contemptuous defiance of
its order.” Hook v. Arizona Dep’t of Corr., 107 F.3d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up).
“A court may wield its civil contempt powers for two separate and independent purposes:
(1) to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court’s order; and (2) to compensate the
complainant for losses sustained.” Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 629 (9th
2 Counsel filed an affidavit on February 20, 2026, amending the affidavit filed the day prior, and
stating that service was effected on Judang. ECF No. 62.
Case 3:25-cv-05156-TSH Document 74 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). “Because civil compensatory sanctions are remedial, they typically take
the form of unconditional monetary sanctions; whereas coercive civil sanctions, intended to deter,
generally take the form of conditional fines.” Id. For example, courts may impose monetary
sanctions for every day of non-compliance to coerce parties or attorneys into compliance with
court orders. See Dionisio, 2019 WL 2420403, at *3 (ordering monetary sanctions of $100 per
day for every business day parties fail to comply with the court’s orders); W. States Insulators &
Allied Workers Pension Plan v. Jenco Mech. Insulation, Inc., No. C-11-0175-EMC, 2013 WL
2252004, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2013) (ordering coercive monetary sanctions of $100 per day
for every day of non-compliance with court’s orders “given Defendant’s evasive behavior and
non-responsiveness”).
Twice the Court has ordered Counsel to comply with the Court’s order at ECF No. 57
regarding service on Judang. See ECF Nos. 60, 64. Despite these reminders—and the Court’s
initial order granting Counsel’s withdrawal—Counsel continue to ignore the Court’s orders by not
timely effecting service on Judang.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Counsel (James C. Huber, Bradley C. Crosley,
and Darren Cruz) to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of the Court’s orders
and sanctioned for failure to comply with the Court’s orders imposing service obligations on
Counsel. Counsel shall file a written response no later than March 10, 2026.
Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response may result in the Court
imposing sanctions. Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline
above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-05156-TSH Document 74 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3