Monster Film Limited v. Galloping Illusions Pty Ltd. et al

Filing 136

ORDER GRANTING COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT 130 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court finds that it is appropriate to decide Martinen's Counterclaim on the merits, because this is not an "extr eme circumstance" that warrants default. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Monsters Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default. (ECF No. 130 .) Monster shall file its answer as a separate docket entry within 7 days of the date of this order. Failure to timely file an answer will result in the entry of default that will be much more difficult to set aside. (lom)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MONSTER FILM LIMITED, a

12

Case No. 2:16-cv-01414-ODW(KS)

corporation,
ORDER GRANTING COUNTER-

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF

vs.

DEFAULT [130]

16
17

GALLOPING ILLUSIONS PTY LTD., a

18

corporation, CARLOS ALPERIN, an

19

individual, ROHAM GHODSI, an

20

individual, CHRISTIAN MARTINEN, an

21

individual, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

22
23

Defendants.

24
25

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

26

AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINTS

27
28

DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE

1

On April 5, 2018, Defendant and Counter-Claimant Christian Martinen

2

(“Martinen”) requested the Clerk to enter default against Plaintiff and Counter-

3

Defendant Monster Film Limited (“Monster”). (ECF No. 125.) The Clerk of Court

4

entered default against Monster on April 6, 2018. (ECF No. 129.) Monster then

5

applied ex parte to set aside the default (“Application”) on April 10, 2018, and

6

Martinen opposed the Application on April 11, 2018. (Appl., ECF No. 130; Opp’n,

7

ECF No. 133.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Monster’s

8

Application. (ECF No. 130.)

9

Monster argues that there is good cause to set aside the default because (1)

10

Monster’s conduct was not culpable, but rather a result of genuine confusion and

11

misunderstanding of the relevant legal standard applicable to service of process of the

12

Counterclaim; (2) Martinen would not be prejudiced by vacating the entry of default;

13

and (3) Monster has a meritorious defense. (Appl. 2.) Monster now asks that entry of

14

default be set aside so that it may properly defend the case.

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) gives a district court the discretion to set

16

aside entry of default upon a showing of good cause. In assessing whether good cause

17

exists to set aside default, district courts look at three factors: “(1) whether the

18

plaintiff will be prejudiced, (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and

19

(3) whether culpable conduct of the defendant led to the default.” Brandt v. Am.

20

Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 653 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Falk v. Allen,

21

739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984)). Courts must also keep in mind that default

22

judgments are “appropriate only in extreme circumstances” and cases should be

23

decided on the merits whenever possible. Falk, 739 F.2d at 463.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

2

1

The Court finds that good cause exists for setting aside entry of default in this

2

case. Martinen is unlikely to be prejudiced, as he has a pending motion for summary

3

judgment and the parties are actively participating in this litigation. (See ECF No.

4

114.) Monster indicates that it has sufficient evidence of a meritorious defense against

5

Martinen’s sole claim of negligence and has submitted a proposed Answer to

6

Martinen’s Counterclaim with its Application. (Appl. 11.)

7

As to Monster’s culpability, Monster claims that it did not file an answer to

8

Martinen’s Counterclaim, because its counsel believed in good faith that the

9

Counterclaim was not properly served, and thus its actions were not culpable. (Appl.

10

8.) The Court finds Monster’s claim hard to swallow. Monster does not dispute that it

11

had actual knowledge of Martinen’s Counterclaim.

12

supposed improper service and avoid filing a responsive pleading, or any challenge to

13

service at all, when entry of default is on the line. As members of the bar, attorneys

14

owe their clients more than taking such a risk. Martinen argues that Monster “made a

15

deliberate decision to ignore the Counterclaim, instead of arguing ineffective service

16

at that time.” (Opp’n 8.) It’s clear from Monster’s response that the decision not to

17

respond was, in fact, deliberate, which the Court finds to be ill advised. However, the

18

Court decides to give Monster the benefit of the doubt here, and concludes that it has

19

presented sufficient support that its failure to plead was in good faith. Accordingly,

20

there is good cause for the Court to excuse Monster’s failure to respond to Martinen’s

21

Counterclaim.

22
23
24
25
26

///

27

///

28

3

Counsel should not rely on

1

The Court finds that it is appropriate to decide Martinen’s Counterclaim on the

2

merits, because this is not an “extreme circumstance” that warrants default.

3

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Monster’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default.

4

(ECF No. 130.) Monster shall file its answer as a separate docket entry within 7 days

5

of the date of this order. Failure to timely file an answer will result in the entry of

6

default that will be much more difficult to set aside.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

April 11, 2018

11
12
13

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4