Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Molina ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE Case No. 1:23-cv-01553-CDB COMPANY, 12 ORDER DENYING CROSS-PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 13 14 v. (Doc. 42) 15 CONCEPCION FLORES MOLINA, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD 16 Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, LITEM 17 v. (Doc. 48) 18 LUPE C. FLORES, ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE 19 Defendant/Cross-Defendant. 20 21 Pending before the Court is Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff Concepcion Flores Molina’s 22 (“Molina”) motion for default judgment against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Lupe C. Flores 23 (“Lupe Flores”). (Doc. 42). No oppositions to Molina’s motion was filed and the deadline to do 24 so has expired. 25 Also before the Court is a filing by Lupe Flores titled “motion to appoint counsel and 26 notice regarding diagnosis.” (Doc. 48). Having considered the moving papers, the Court 27 construes the motion to be, more properly, a renewed motion for appointment of guardian ad 1 Molina’s Motion for Default Judgment 2 As a general rule, “default judgments are ordinarily disfavored,” as “[c]ases should be 3 decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 4 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 20160 (quoting Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986)). 5 Under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, default judgment is a two-step process. 6 See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471. Prior to entry of default judgment, there must be an entry of default. 7 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Upon entry of default, the factual allegations of the complaint, save for 8 those concerning damages, are deemed to have been admitted by the defaulting party. Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 8(b)(6); see Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). 10 A district court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for default judgment. Aldabe v. 11 Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); see TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 12 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Rule 55 gives the court considerable leeway as to what it may require 13 as a prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment.”). The Ninth Circuit has set out seven factors 14 to be considered by courts in reviewing a motion for default judgment: “(1) the possibility of 15 prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim (3) the sufficiency of the 16 complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning 17 material facts, (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy 18 underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel, 782 19 F.2d at 1471–72. Entry of default judgment is not appropriate where the second and third factors 20 weigh against plaintiff. See Mnatsakanyan v. Goldsmith & Hull APC, 2013 WL 10155707, *10 21 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) (“The fact that factors two and three weigh against the entry of default 22 judgment is particularly significant, as courts often treat these as the most important factors.”) 23 (citing cases). 24 Molina’s motion for default judgment is deficient insofar as it fails to acknowledge Eitel 25 or present any argument as to how the seven Eitel factors support entry of default judgment here. 26 In addition, on August 26, 2024, Lupe Flores filed a document titled “response.” (Doc. 47). 27 Upon review, the Court construes this as an answer to the cross-complaint, albeit late and 1 concerning her alleged undue influence in ascending to beneficiary status. Cf. (Doc. 47 at 1 with 2 Doc. 9-1 ¶¶ 5-6, 25-30). Given the motion’s deficiencies and the existence of a dispute within the 3 pleadings over material facts, Molina’s motion for default judgment will be denied without 4 prejudice. E.g., Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986) (motion for default 5 judgment properly denied when plaintiff failed to show prejudice from one defendant’s failure to 6 comply strictly with time requirements); Krieg v. U.M.C. Hosp., 217 Fed. Appx. 604, 605 (9th 7 Cir. 2007) (affirming district court’s denial of entry of default judgment given existence of 8 disputes over material facts) (unpub.). 9 Lupe Flores’ Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem 10 On March 25, 2024, Lupe Flores filed a motion for appointment of guardian ad litem. 11 (Doc. 31). On April 19, 2024, the Court denied the motion without prejudice on three grounds: 12 (1) the motion failed to provide substantial evidence of incompetence; (2) the motion failed to 13 show efforts to confer with Molina and indicate in the application whether Molina concurs or 14 objects to the proposed appointment; and (3) the motion failed to identify potential candidates 15 willing to be appointed as guardian ad litem and include their sworn attestations that they did not 16 have conflicts of interest, as required by Local Rule 202. (See Doc. 33). On July 8, 2025, Lupe 17 Flores filed a renewed motion for appointment of guardian ad litem. (Doc. 39). On August 1, 18 2024, the Court denied the renewed motion without prejudice on the grounds that points (2) and 19 (3) above still had not been remedied. 20 On August 26, 2024, Lupe Flores filed her renewed motion for appointment of guardian 21 ad litem. (Doc. 48). The Court finds that the new motion has not remedied the deficiencies of the 22 prior motion, namely points (2) and (3) above. The renewed motion for appointment of guardian 23 ad litem is therefore will be denied without prejudice. 24 The Court reiterates that any motion for appointment of guardian ad litem must 25 comply with Local Rule 202, meaning it must include signed declarations from individuals 26 willing to be appointed guardian ad litem. These declarations must demonstrate that the 27 proposed guardian ad litem/declarant does not have any conflicts of interest with Lupe 1 The Court also reiterates that, prior to filing a renewed motion for appointment of 2 guardian ad litem, Lupe Flores must confer with Molina about whether Molina concurs or 3 objects to the proposed guardian ad litem appointment. The date, time, manner, and 4 content of this conference must be included in the motion for appointment of guardian ad 5 litem. 6 Mandatory Status Conference 7 The Court sets the case for mandatory status conference on October 23, 2024. The Court 8 invites Lupe Flores’ power of attorney, Dawn M. Harris, to appear. The Court also invites 9 the parties to meet and confer in case of a scheduling conflict or unavailability on the date of the 10 conference, and thereafter propose modified dates on which all parties, Lupe Flores’s power of 11 attorney, and any relevant witnesses to the issue of Lupe Flores’ claimed incompetence are 12 available. 13 The Court will entertain a renewed motion for appointment of guardian ad litem filed 14 prior the conference. Any such motion must comply with Local Rule 202 and include 15 declarations as set forth above. Additionally, if a renewed application for appointment of 16 guardian ad litem is filed prior to the status conference, the proposed guardian ad litem must 17 appear at the conference, as should any medical providers that can answer the Court’s 18 questions regarding Lupe Flores’ proffered medical condition, so as to be informed regarding any 19 incompetency determination. 20 Conclusion and Order 21 For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 22 1. Molina’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 42) is DENIED WITHOUT 23 PREJUDICE; 24 2. Lupe Flores’ renewed motion for appointment of guardian ad litem (Doc. 48) is 25 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 26 /// 27 /// 1 3. The parties and any relevant witnesses shall appear for status conference on October 2 23, 2024, at 10:00a.m. The parties shall appear at the conference remotely via Zoom 3 video conference, and counsel may obtain the Zoom ID and password from the 4 Courtroom Deputy (Cori Boren, cboren @caed.uscourts.gov) prior to the conference. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 5, 2024 | Ww R~ 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 «