Dozier v. Gasco Inc. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEE DOZIER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00606-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING ASIDE CLERK’S DEFAULT AND RESCHEDULING INITIAL 13 v. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 14 GASCO INC., (Doc. Nos. 6, 7) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to set aside the Clerk’s entry of 19 default filed July 18, 2023. (Doc. No. 7). Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 19, 2023. (Doc. 20 No. 1). Proof of Summons was filed on May 8, 2023, indicating service was effectuated on May 21 6, 2023. (Doc. No. 4). Plaintiff moved for clerk’s entry of default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) on 22 June 7, 2027, after Defendant failed to timely respond to the Complaint. (Doc. No. 5). The same 23 day, the Clerk entered a default. (Doc. No. 6). 24 A court may set aside an entry of default for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Where it 25 is an entry of default—rather than a default judgment—that a party seeks to have set aside, courts 26 have particularly broad discretion. O'Connor v. State of Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 364 (9th Cir. 27 1994). A court generally considers the following three factors in evaluating good cause: (1) 28 whether the party seeking to set aside the default engaged in culpable conduct leading to default, 1 | (2) whether the party has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether the opposing party will be 2 | prejudiced. Brandt v. Amer. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 653 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). 3 Here, the joint motion is silent for the Court to evaluate whether good cause exists. 4 | Nonetheless, default is considered appropriate only in extreme cases with preference given to a 5 || decision on the merits. Falk vy. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, the motion was 6 | promptly filed after entry of default. And Plaintiff stipulates to setting aside the default so no 7 || prejudice can be assumed. 8 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 9 1. The joint motion to set aside the default (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED and the Clerk 10 shall set aside the default (Doc. No. 6). 11 2. Defendant shall file a response to the Complaint no later than August 18, 2023. 12 3. The Court reschedules this case for a mandatory telephonic Initial Scheduling 13 Conference for Thursday, September 14, 2023, at 10:00 A.M. The parties shall file 14 their joint Scheduling Report no later than September 7, 2023. 15 '© Dated: _ July 19. 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:23-cv-00606

Filed Date: 7/19/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024