Douglas v. Kalanta ( 2022 )

1 `` 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RICHARD WILLIAM DOUGLAS, JR. et Case No. 1:21-cv-01535-JLT-EPG al., 11 ORDER HOLDING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN ABEYANCE 12 v. (ECF No. 34) 13 WILLIAM JOSEPH KALANTA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on the motion for default judgment filed by Plaintiffs 17 William Douglas, Jr. and Christine Anne Hurtt. (ECF No. 34). For the reasons given, the Court 18 will hold the motion in abeyance. 19 Plaintiffs filed this civil action on October 18, 2021. (ECF No. 1). The complaint 20 generally alleges “that the named [D]efendants [William Joseph Kalanta, Michael James Kalanta, 21 Kimberly Jo Hurtt, and Modesto Police Department] conspired together to murder Angela Dawn 22 Kalanta” and argues that Defendants “are involved in organized crime, human trafficking and 23 racketeering influenced corrupt organizations.” (ECF No. 1, p. 1). On January 24, 2022, 24 Defendants William Joseph Kalanta, Michael James Kalanta, and Kimberly Jo Hurtt moved to 25 dismiss the case with prejudice, arguing that the claims cannot proceed based on claim and issue 26 preclusion, the statute of limitations, and Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 18). This 27 motion remains pending. 28 1 Defendant Modesto Police Department has not appeared or otherwise offered a defense, 2 and Plaintiffs have obtained a clerk’s entry of default and have filed a motion for default 3 judgment. (ECF Nos. 33, 34). On April 7, 2022, Defendants William Joseph Kalanta, Michael 4 James Kalanta, and Kimberly Jo Hurtt filed an opposition brief, arguing “that the entry of default 5 judgment is inappropriate while related claims remain pending against defendants who have 6 appeared” because a partial judgment against Defendant Modesto Police Department would 7 necessarily resolve common issues linked to the remaining Defendants and could thus prejudice 8 them. (ECF No. 37). Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on April 12, 2022, arguing that the authority 9 relied on in the opposition does not apply here and generally reciting certain substantive 10 allegations against Defendant Modesto Police Department. (ECF No. 38). 11 After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court will hold the motion for default 12 judgment in abeyance. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows a court to “direct entry of a 13 final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly 14 determines that there is no just reason for delay.” However, “where a complaint alleges that 15 defendants are jointly liable and one of them defaults, judgment should not be entered against the 16 defaulting defendant until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants.” In re 17 First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001) (footnote omitted). This rule extends “to 18 defendants who are similarly situated, even if not jointly and severally liable.” Id.; Sunbelt 19 Rentals, Inc. v. Three Bros. Elec. Contractors, Inc., 2022 WL 134921, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 20 2022), report and recommendation adopted, (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2022) (noting discretion afforded 21 by Rule 54(b) but citing case law concluding that default judgement should not be entered against 22 “a non-answering defendant while the action is proceeding against answering defendants”). 23 Despite Plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary, this line of authority is directly applicable 24 here. Defendants are similarly situated based on Plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint, most 25 notably, that all the named Defendants conspired together to murder Angela Dawn Kalanta and 26 are all involved in organized crime, human trafficking, and racketeering. (ECF No. 1, pp. 1, 8). 27 “At the very least, the claims, facts, and legal issues asserted in the complaint relative to each of 28 the [] [D]efendants are quite similar.” Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 2022 WL 134921, at *4. Further, the 1 | case is still proceeding against all Defendants except Defendant Modesto Police Department. 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 3 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is held in abeyance until judgment is 4 appropriate for the remaining defendants or upon further order of the court (ECF 5 No. 34). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 18, 2022 [spe ey □ 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28