Villareal v. County of Fresno

Filing 108

ORDER Setting Aside Default and GRANTING Defendants an Extension of Time to File Their Responsive Pleading 105 , 106 & 107 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/7/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ELAINE K. VILLAREAL,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF FRESNO and SHERIFF
MARGARET MIMS,

Case No. 1:15-cv-01410-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT
AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
THEIR RESPONSIVE PLEADING
(ECF NOS. 105, 106, & 107)

Defendants.
Elaine Villareal (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

Defendant County of Fresno’s responsive pleading was due no later than April 30,

18

2018. (ECF No. 102). County of Fresno did not timely file its responsive pleading, and on

19

May 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against defendant County of Fresno.

20

(ECF No. 104). Default was entered. (ECF No. 106). On that same day, County of Fresno

21

filed a request to set aside the entry of default, and Defendants filed a request for additional

22

time to file their responsive pleading. (ECF Nos. 105 & 107).

23

Defendants argue that there is good cause to set aside the entry of default against

24

County of Fresno because County of Fresno has been acting promptly and in good faith. Prior

25

to the responsive pleading deadline, counsel for Defendants spoke with counsel for Plaintiff

26

regarding the case, including the need for additional time to file the responsive pleading.

27

Counsel for Defendants requested a thirty-day extension. Counsel for Plaintiff was agreeable

28

to an extension, but thought a lesser extension was in order. Counsel for Plaintiff agreed to a
1

1

seven-day extension, although a formal request was never filed with the Court. Despite the

2

agreement, Counsel for Plaintiff filed the request for entry of default. Counsel for Defendants

3

attempted to get into contact with counsel for Plaintiff prior to filing the response to the request

4

for entry of default, but was unable to. Accordingly, Defendants argue that there is good cause

5

to set aside the entry of default.

6

Additionally, Defendants request that they be given until May 31, 2018, to file their

7

responsive pleadings. Defendants argue that the extension is necessary because Defendants’

8

counsel needs to confer with Plaintiff’s counsel. Additionally, defendant Mims has been absent

9

from Fresno, and this case may be assigned to new counsel.

10

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), “the court may set aside an entry of

11

default for good cause….” “To determine ‘good cause’, a court must ‘consider[ ] three factors:

12

(1) whether [the party seeking to set aside the default] engaged in culpable conduct that led to

13

the default; (2) whether [it] had [no] meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default

14

judgment would prejudice’ the other party.” United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of

15

Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (alterations in original) (quoting

16

Franchise Holding II, LLC. v. Huntington Restaurants Grp., Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925-26 (9th

17

Cir. 2004)). “This standard, which is the same as is used to determine whether a default

18

judgment should be set aside under Rule 60(b), is disjunctive, such that a finding that any one

19

of these factors is true is sufficient reason for the district court to refuse to set aside the

20

default.” (Id.).

21

“[D]efault judgments are generally disfavored; whenever it is reasonably possible, cases

22

should be decided on their merits.” Schwab v. Bullock's Inc., 508 F.2d 353, 355 (9th Cir.

23

1974). See also Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[J]udgment by default is a

24

drastic step appropriate only in extreme circumstances; a case should, whenever possible, be

25

decided on the merits.”).

26

It does not appear that County of Fresno engaged in culpable conduct, it does not appear

27

that County of Fresno lacks a meritorious defense, and there does not appear to be any

28

prejudice to Plaintiff if the entry of default is set aside. In fact, it appears that Plaintiff knew
2

1

that County of Fresno was going to defend this suit, and that County of Fresno was seeking an

2

extension of time to file its responsive pleading. Based on this, and the strong public policy in

3

favor of deciding cases on the merits, the Court finds good cause to set aside the entry of

4

default.

5
6
7

The Court also finds good cause to grant Defendants an extension of time to file their
responsive pleading.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

8

1. The entry of default against County of Fresno (ECF No. 106) is set aside; and

9

2. Defendants have until May 31, 2018, to file their responsive pleading.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 7, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3