Sifat LLC v. Werner Construction LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
SIFAT LLC,
Plaintiff.
V.
WERNER CONSTRUCTION LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00258
OPINION AND ORDER
This case has been referred to me for all pretrial purposes. See Dkt. 23.
Pending before me is Plaintiff Sifat LLC’s amended motion for default judgment.
See Dkt. 22. It would be inappropriate at this juncture to consider the motion,
given the unresolved service issues and the fact that default should not have been
entered.
Sifat instituted this case against Werner Construction LLC on August 14,
2025. See Dkt. 1. Werner was served via its Owner/Registered Agent, Christina
Collier, on August 15, 2025. See Dkt. 7. According to the Affidavit of Service and a
picture of the house where the process server served Ms. Collier, service was
effectuated at 2103 Lakeway Drive, League City, TX 77573. See id. This address—
2103 Lakeway Drive—is the address that Sifat provided when completing the
summons. See Dkt. 2. It is also the address listed on the summons issued by the
court. See Dkt. 5. Most importantly, 2103 Lakeway Drive is the address listed for
Werner on the contract between Sifat and Werner that is the subject of this lawsuit.
See Dkt. 11-1 at 2.
Despite requesting a summons for Werner at 2103 Lakeway Drive, the
summons being issued for 2103 Lakeway Drive, service being effectuated at 2103
Lakeway Drive, and 2103 Lakeway Drive being the address listed on the contract
that is the subject of this suit, Sifat has served all subsequent filings in this case on
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00258 Document 24 Filed 02/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
Werner at 2105 Lakeway Drive, as opposed to 2103 Lakeway Drive. See Dkt. 9 at
12; Dkt. 11 at 12; Dkt. 12 at 2; Dkt. 14 at 2; Dkt. 20 at 4; Dkt. 22-1 at 11–12. Sifat’s
failure to direct its filings to the correct address for Werner—2103 Lakeway Drive—
creates a serious notice problem.
“Courts generally require that some notice be given to a defendant between
the time of initial service of process and entry of default judgment.” Regal Nails,
Salon & Spa, LLC v. Ha, No. 20-14388, 2021 WL 4976529, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 9,
2021) (collecting cases). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that all
papers “be served on every party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1). Here, Sifat purports to
have served Werner by mail. Although mail is a proper method of serving papers,
such mailings must be properly addressed. See Smith v. New Leaf Assocs., L.L.C.,
No. 05-919, 2010 WL 3385168, at *1 (M.D. La. Mar. 9, 2010) (“While service by
certified mail does not require actual delivery, it does require that the notice be
received by defendant or by a person authorized to receive mail on his behalf.”
(quotation omitted)).
The one and only time that Sifat has attempted service via the United States
Postal Service, certified mail, return receipt requested, the post office confirmed
that 2105 Lakeway Drive was an incorrect address. That attempted service
occurred on February 13, 2026, when Sifat mailed its amended motion for default
judgment to 2105 Lakeway Drive. See Dkt. 22-1 at 2, 11. Sifat has provided the
tracking number for the mailing. See id. at 11, 12. The tracking information on
USPS’s website shows that 2105 Lakeway Drive is an incorrect address:
Case 3:25-cv-00258 Document 24 Filed 02/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
See 	USPS 	Tracking 	for 	Tracking 	Number 	9589071052702632659288,
https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction_input?origTrackNum=9589071
052702632659288 (last visited February 23, 2026). 1
1 Federal courts routinely take “judicial notice that the USPS website states that it stores
tracking records related to certified mail for two years.” Wilmington PT Corp. v. Tiwana,
No. 	19-cv-2035, 	2023 	WL 	4673777, 	at 	*10 	(E.D.N.Y. 	June 	12, 	2023) 	(citing
https://faq.usps.com/s/article/USPS-Tracking-The-Basics#How_can_I_use_USPS_Tr
acking, and collecting cases). When the tracking numbers at issue are within that two-
year timeframe, courts also take “judicial notice of the information about that tracking
number found on the U.S. Postal Service’s website.” Walker v. Houston Hous. Auth., No.
H-19-2736, 2020 WL 1855196, at *2 n.27 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2020), report and
recommendation adopted, No. H-19-2736, 2020 WL 1848056 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2020),
aff’d sub nom. Walker v. Skalka, 847 F. App’x 230 (5th Cir. 2021).
Case 3:25-cv-00258 Document 24 Filed 02/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
Because there is no indication in the record that Werner has been properly
served with any filing in this case after the initial service of summons, it was
inappropriate for the Clerk to enter default against Werner. Accordingly, the
Clerk’s Entry of Default (Dkt. 15) is withdrawn. 2
Sifat may apply for a default judgment only after default has properly been
entered. See N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996). Because
Werner is not yet in default, Sifat’s amended motion for default judgment (Dkt. 22)
is denied without prejudice as moot. 3
Sifat must properly serve Werner, via USPS, with every document that Sifat
has filed in this case at the same address at which Werner was originally served
with process: 2103 Lakeway Drive, League City, TX 77573. No further action will
be taken in this case until Sifat proves to this court that it has served all its filings
in this case on Werner at 2103 Lakeway Drive.
SIGNED this ___ day of February 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 “When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a
magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the
required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Setting aside an entry of default is a non-dispositive matter because
doing so does not dispose of a party’s claim or defense. See Carey v. Hannah, Kendrix,
Zachary & Assocs., No. 1:11-cv-1782, 2011 WL 13322458, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 2,
2011); Jou v. Adalian, No. 09-226, 2009 WL 4798204, *1 (D. Hawaii, Dec. 3, 2009).
3 Denying Sifat’s motion for default judgment without prejudice does not dispose of any
party’s claim or defense. Accordingly, I may rule by order rather than making a
recommendation. See Field v. Exponential Wealth Inc., No. 21 Civ. 1990, 2023 WL
2263120, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2023) (denial of motion for default judgment without
prejudice is within magistrate judge’s authority to order, rather than recommend); Griffin
v. Philips, No. 4:22-cv-268, 2023 WL 129416, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2023) (same).
Case 3:25-cv-00258 Document 24 Filed 02/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4