Saavedra v. Mackey ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY JO SAAVEDRA, Case No. 2:21-cv-01587-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE DENIED 14 RIDDELL MACKEY, et al., WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. ECF No. 46 16 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff Mary Jo Saavedra brings this negligence action against defendants Riddell 19 Mackey and Jeffrey DeGroot.1 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that DeGroot and Mackey’s vehicle 20 collided with her vehicle, causing her injury. DeGroot has appeared, but Mackey has not.2 21 Plaintiff now moves for default judgment against Mackey. ECF No. 46. Because a non- 22 defaulting defendant remains, I will recommend that plaintiff’s motion be denied as premature. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides, “when multiple parties are involved, the 24 court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties 25 only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 54(b). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that default judgment should not be entered against a 27 1 Plaintiff previously dismissed defendant EAN Holdings, LLC. ECF No. 10. 28 2 Mackey was personally served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A); ECF No. 25 at 3-4. 1 defaulting defendant “until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants.” 2 Nielson v. Chang, 253 F.3d 520, 531-32 (9th Cir. 2001) (summarizing the holding of Frow v. De 3 La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872)); Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2012) 4 (providing that the “proper procedure” for district courts is to wait until the completion of trial 5 against the non-defaulting defendant before entering default judgment against the defaulting 6 defendant); Jetpack Enterprises, LLC v. Jetlev, LLC, No. SACV 15-02113-CJC (JCGx), 2017 7 WL 10562552, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2017) (declining to enter default judgment against 8 defaulting defendants when non-defaulting defendants were actively litigating the matter because 9 it would create “an unnecessary risk of inconsistent judgments”). 10 In this case, there is just reason to delay entry of default judgment against Mackey. Both 11 defendants are similarly situated, and plaintiff’s claims tie them together. The complaint alleges 12 that either DeGroot or Mackey was driving the car that caused the collision with plaintiff’s 13 vehicle. ECF No. 1 at 2. Indeed, plaintiff acknowledges in her motion that the claims against 14 DeGroot and Mackey are “intertwined,” and that entry of default judgment could lead “to the real 15 possibility that there would be inconsistent determinations of damages.” ECF No. 46 at 3. Since 16 DeGroot’s liability is undetermined, a risk of inconsistent judgments would exist if the court were 17 to enter default judgment for Mackey at this time. See Frow, 82 U.S. at 554 (“A final decree on 18 the merits cannot be made separate against one of several defendants upon a joint charge against 19 all, where the case is still pending as to the others.”); Penton v. Johnson, No. 2:11-cv-0518-TLN- 20 KJN (P), 2022 WL 483147, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022) (denying without prejudice plaintiff’s 21 renewed motion for default judgment when the claims against the defaulting defendant were 22 factually intertwined with the claims against the remaining defendants). 23 Considering the risk of inconsistent outcomes, I recommend that the court decline to enter 24 default judgment against Mackey. Nothing in this order foreclosures plaintiff from renewing her 25 motion at a more appropriate juncture. 26 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, 27 ECF No. 46, be denied without prejudice. 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 1 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 2 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 3 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 4 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 5 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 6 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 7 | appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 8 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ February 9, 2024 Q_—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28