Sipe v. Countrywide Bank, et al.

Filing 76

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Application for Default Judgment 75 , signed by Senior Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/21/2011. (Kusamura, W)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

VINCENT SIPE,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

1:09-CV-00798-OWW-JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT

v.
COUNTRYWIDE BANK; SIERRA PACIFIC
MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.; BANK OF
MADERA COUNTY; COUNTRYWIDE DOCUMENT
CUSTODY SERVICES, A DIVISION OF
TREASURY BANK N.A.; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM,
INC.; FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE, INC.;
JOHN NORBERG; CAROL DESILVA; and
DOES 1-20, inclusive,

(Doc. 75)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Defendants.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is Plaintiff Vincent Sipe’s (“Plaintiff”)
Application for Default Judgment. For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED.
II.

DISCUSSION

A scheduling conference was held on November 18, 2010, attended

22

only by Plaintiff’s counsel; Defendants did not appear. Based on

23

Plaintiff’s representations, the Order After Scheduling Conference

24
25

dated November 23, 2010 stated that: (1) Plaintiff intended to
dismiss the two individual Defendants, John Norberg (“Norberg”) and

26
27
28

Carol DeSilva (“DeSilva”), and pursue them in an alternative forum;
and (2) Plaintiff intended to present evidence at a prove up hearing

1
2
3
4

against Defendant Sierra Pacific Mortgage (“SPM”). Doc. 67.
The prove up hearing against SPM was held on April 18, 2011,
without notice to, or appearance by, SPM or any Defendant. At that
time, the court did not realize that default judgment had not been

5
6
7

entered against SPM. Rather, Plaintiff’s claims against SPM had been
dismissed without leave to amend on July 30, 2010. Doc. 56. At the

8

hearing, the court requested documentation proving Plaintiff’s

9

entitlement to default judgment.

10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff filed an Application for Default Judgment on August 1,
2011. Doc. 75. The Application for Default Judgment: (1) does not
mention SPM; (2) requests default judgment against Norbert (against
whom default judgment had been entered, Doc. 62); but (3)
substantively only contains evidence concerning DeSilva (against whom

16

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default was declined, Doc. 63). The

17

Application for Default Judgment is a wholly insufficient basis for

18

entry of default judgment against any Defendant. In addition, there

19

is no evidence that notice of Plaintiff’s Application for Default

20

Judgment was served on any Defendant.

21
22

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated:

23
24
25

1. Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED.
2. If Plaintiff intends to pursue default judgment against any

26

remaining Defendant, he must submit any motion for default

27

judgment within thirty (30) days of electronic service of this

28

2

1

Order.

2

IT SO ORDERED

3

Dated: September 21, 2011

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
Oliver W. Wanger
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3