In re: G Pen Litig.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI IN RE: G PEN LITIG.

Case No. 1:23-cv-748 THIS DOCUMENT PERTAINS TO: _ PLAINTIFF GS HOLISTIC, LLC, Judge Walter H. Rice AND DEFENDANTS MIT VED,” Mag. Judge Michael R. Merz LLC, d/b/a ROOSEVELT SMOKE - & VAPE, AND MIT PATEL. : ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF GS HOLISTIC, LLC’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DOC. #61) AGAINST DEFENDANTS MIT VED, LLC, d/b/a ROOSEVELT SMOKE & VAPE, AND MIT PATEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING UPON PROPERLY EFFECTING SERVICE OF RENEWED MOTION This case is before the Court on the Motion for Default Judgment of Plaintiff GS Holistic, LLC, filed November 21, 2025. (Doc. #61). On January 20, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff “to file electronically copies of the return receipts from the certified mailing of the Motion” to Defendants Mit Ved LLC, d/b/a Roosevelt Smoke & Vape (“Roosevelt”), and Mit Patel “within SEVEN (7) days of entry.” (Order, Doc. #71, PAGEID 949). The Court further ordered that the filed return receipts “include the signatures, print names of signers, and the dates on which the persons signed.” (/d.).

On January 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed the proof of service. (Notice, No. 1:24- cv-553, Doc. #37). However, the documents filed are incomplete and inconsistent, rendering the Court unable to conclude that service was effected and Defendants were on notice of the Motion. The Notice states “that on November 28, 2025, the Plaintiff, via Certified Mail with Return Receipt, mailed Plaintiff's Motion for Final Default Judgment[.]” (/a. at PAGEID 221). However, the attached Certified Mail Envelope for Roosevelt shows a postmark of November 21, 2025. (No. 1:24-cv- 553, Doc. #37-2, PAGEID 226). Moreover, the Return Receipt for Roosevelt appears to have been signed on November 25, 2025, by an “E. Patel.” (No. 1:24- cv-553, Doc. #37-1, PAGEID 223). There is no indication of who E. Patel is, much less that he is authorized to accept service on behalf of Roosevelt. Indeed, given that Mit Patel is the sole member and authorized agent for Roosevelt’, the Court cannot conclude that an E. Patel receiving and signing the certified mail receipt constitutes valid service upon Roosevelt. Moreover, the Return Receipt for Mit Patel in his personal capacity (Doc. #37-2, PAGEID 229) is unsigned and undated.

Nor does Plaintiff provide any other documentation that would support the conclusion that Mit Patel was personally served. Absent proof of service and, consequently, proof that Defendants were on notice of the Motion, the Court cannot enter default judgment against the Defendants based on their silence.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #61) is OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling. Plaintiff shall file signed and dated return receipts if it chooses to serve a renewed motion by certified mail, or file Arts. of Org., https://bizimage.ohiosos.gov/api/image/pdf/202107801988 (last accessed Jan. 29, 2026); see a/so Collins v. City of Norwood, Ohio, No. 1:23-cv-632, 2025 WL 2022116, *7 n.8 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 18, 2025) (Cole, J.) (the “Ohio Secretary of State’s business records” are public documents “of which this Court can take judicial notice[.]” affidavits of service if it chooses to use a process server. The Court will evaluate a renewed motion once it is satisfied that Plaintiff has properly effected service against both Roosevelt and Mit Patel.

IT 1S SO ORDERED. , January 29, 2026 WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT