Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Google LLC sought breach-of-contract and declaratory relief against NAO Tsargrad Media after Tsargrad sued in Russia seeking reinstatement of its Google account and related services. Google's Terms of Service required covered disputes to be resolved in Santa Clara County, California. Tsargrad and two other defendants previously moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the court deferred that motion to allow settlement negotiations between Google and the other defendants. One former defendant was later voluntarily dismissed, and the case was stayed as to another.
Tsargrad's former counsel moved to withdraw on January 8, 2026, reporting that Tsargrad would not participate further, understood the consequences, and assented to withdrawal. The clerk entered Tsargrad's default on March 20, 2025. Google's subsequent default-judgment motion was unopposed and decided without oral argument. The court examined jurisdiction and the Eitel factors, treating liability allegations as true while excluding damages allegations from that rule.
The Court’s Holding
The court found subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), personal jurisdiction through Tsargrad's forum-selection agreement, and Article III standing because Tsargrad's litigation forced Google outside the contractual forum and an anti-suit injunction would redress that injury. It denied Tsargrad's earlier dismissal motion as abandoned and, alternatively, found personal jurisdiction and no comity basis for dismissal. All Eitel factors favored judgment: Google lacked other recourse, its earlier preliminary-injunction showing supported the merits and pleading sufficiency, no money was requested, material facts were effectively undisputed, and Tsargrad's deliberate withdrawal was not excusable neglect.
Under Rule 55(b)(2), the court entered judgment on Google's contract and permanent-injunction claim and its Declaratory Judgment Act claim. Seven declarations establish Google's termination and suspension rights, the clauses' validity, Tsargrad's breaches, the Santa Clara forum requirement, an implied bar on enforcing judgments obtained in violation of that clause, and the Russian judgment's astreinte as an unconscionable penalty and punitive judgment. The injunction binds Tsargrad, specified representatives, and persons in active concert with them. It bars enforcement proceedings outside Russia except in Santa Clara County courts, requires unconditional withdrawal of foreign enforcement proceedings including those in Egypt, Spain, and Turkey, and bars Russian proceedings intended to prevent Google from enforcing this judgment. The document is final as to all claims against Tsargrad and serves as the separate Rule 58(a) judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant's informed and intentional refusal to continue defending can support default judgment notwithstanding the policy favoring decisions on the merits.
- The court used Tsargrad's agreement to litigate in Santa Clara County as the basis for personal jurisdiction and found that an anti-suit injunction would redress Google's injury from litigation outside that forum.
- The final declarations address both Tsargrad's original Russian suit and its continuing efforts to enforce the Russian judgment in violation of the forum-selection clause.
- The injunction distinguishes foreign enforcement proceedings outside Russia from Russian proceedings intended to stop Google from enforcing the United States judgment.
- The judgment resolves all claims against Tsargrad, while the order separately notes a voluntary dismissal and a stay affecting other defendants.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a court can convert an unopposed default into detailed final declaratory and injunctive relief after independently examining jurisdiction, standing, the merits, and the Eitel factors. Its earlier preliminary-injunction findings supplied the basis for concluding that Google had stated claims on which it could recover.
The relief protects the contractual forum through declarations and conduct requirements rather than a damages award. Its express coverage of existing and future foreign enforcement proceedings, together with the restriction on Russian proceedings aimed at defeating this judgment, defines the judgment's practical scope while leaving the separately stayed matter against another defendant outside this final disposition.