James v. Mehta

Filing 101

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/28/13 recommending that plaintiff's request to enter default against defendant Uppal 90 be denied. MOTION for ENTRY of DEFAULT 90 referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES CORNELIUS JAMES,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-1171 LKK DAD P

vs.
DEEPAK MEHTA, et al.,
Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an action filed

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for entry of default

18

against defendant Uppal. Defendant Uppal has filed an opposition to plaintiff’s request as well

19

as an answer to plaintiff’s complaint. For the following reasons, the undersigned will

20

recommend that plaintiff’s request for entry of default be denied.

21

BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiff is proceeding on his second amended complaint against defendants

23

Aguilera, Andreason, Bick, Capitano, Dhillon, Mehta, Pai, Uppal, Dr. Williams, and Nurse

24

Williams. Therein, plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to provide him with adequate

25

medical treatment for his: (1) Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS); (2) Valley Fever; (3) ear

26

infections; and (4) high blood pressure. In this regard, plaintiff claims that the defendants have
1

1

been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

2

Plaintiff also asserts state law claims for negligence and medical malpractice. In terms of relief,

3

plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

4

On December 29, 2012, defendant Uppal was served with the proper summons

5

pursuant to Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, defendant Uppal did not

6

timely file a responsive pleading or answer to the complaint. On January 28, 2013, plaintiff filed

7

a request for entry of default. On February 11, 2013, Real Party in Interest California

8

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) moved to stay plaintiff’s request and

9

this court granted that request. On March 13, 2013, counsel on behalf of defendant Uppal filed

10
11
12

an opposition to plaintiff’s request for entry of default and an answer to plaintiff’s complaint.
DISCUSSION
The court should not formally enter default against a defendant when it is clear

13

that the court would set aside that same default upon motion by the defendant. See 10A Fed.

14

Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2682 (3d ed. Dec. 2012) (citing Brown v. Weschler, 135 F. Supp. 622

15

(D.D.C. 1955) (“The Court will not go through formal entry of default in a case when it is

16

apparent that in the exercise of its discretion the default will be set aside on motion.”). Rule

17

55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the district court to set aside an entry of

18

default for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). In determining whether to set aside the entry of

19

default, the court may consider: (1) whether the defendant’s default was willful, (2) whether the

20

plaintiff would be prejudiced by setting aside the default, and (3) whether the defendant has a

21

meritorious defense. See Franchise Holding II v. Huntington Restaurants Group, 375 F.3d 922,

22

925-26 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945-46 (9th

23

Cir. 1986) (“The court’s discretion is especially broad where, as here, it is entry of default that is

24

being set aside rather than a default judgment.”).

25
26

In this case, the court finds that because there would be good cause to set aside
defendant Uppal’s default, the court therefore should not formally enter default against her.
2

1

Specifically, defendant Uppal’s default does not appear to have been willful. Plaintiff served the

2

defendant by publication because both the United States Marshal and plaintiff were unable to

3

locate her. On February 13, 2013, defense counsel, on behalf of Real Party in Interest CDCR,

4

filed a motion to stay plaintiff’s request for entry of default because defendant Uppal was

5

believed to be homeless and therefore could not be easily located. On March 6, 2013, defense

6

counsel located defendant Uppal and obtained her signed request for representation form. On

7

March 11, 2013, defense counsel filed a notice of appearance and an answer on behalf of

8

defendant Uppal, demonstrating her intent to defendant against this suit. See Gregorian v.

9

Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515, 1525 (9th Cir. 1989) (culpability involves “not simply nonappearance

10

following the receipt of notice of the action, but rather conduct which hindered judicial

11

proceedings . . . . ”). Moreover, plaintiff would not suffer any prejudice at this juncture of the

12

present case. The court recently granted the parties’ stipulation to modify the scheduling order,

13

which acknowledged the possibility that defendant Uppal might appear in this action to defend

14

herself. See Order filed February 15, 2013 (Doc. No. 94.) Accordingly, the court should

15

exercise its discretion and not formally enter default against defendant Uppal.

16

CONCLUSION

17
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to enter
default against defendant Uppal (Doc. No. 90) be denied.

19

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

20

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

21

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

22

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

23

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
3

1

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

2

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

DATED: March 28, 2013.

4
5
6

DAD:9
jame1171.def(2)

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