McCune v. Singh

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/3/2013 ORDERING 59 Defendant fails to show that he is entitled to relief from the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorneys' fees in this case. For this reason, his motion is DENIED; Monetar y Sanctions In the Court's 4/15/2013 minute order, Defendant's counsel Robert McCann was ORDERED to show cause for failing to oppose Plaintiff's motion for fees as required by Local Rule 230(c) or pay sanctions in the amount of $1 50 within 10 days. Mr. McCann did not respond directly to the Court's minute order, and insofar as the motion to set aside constitutes a response it is insufficient for the reasons discussed in the preceding section. The motion was also filed pa st the Court's 10 day deadline. The Court accordingly finds that Mr. McCann has not shown good cause for failing to oppose Plaintiff's fees motion, and he is therefore ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $150.00 to the Clerk of Court within 10 days.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL MCCUNE,

12

No.

2:10-cv-02207-JAM-GGH

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

SATNAM SINGH,

15

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AND AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES;
AND ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY
SANCTIONS

16
17

Presently before the Court is Defendant Satnam Singh’s

18

(“Defendant”) Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default, Judgment, and

19

Award of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 59).

20

opposes the motion (Doc. #61).

Plaintiff Michael McCune

Defendant did not file a reply.

21

1.

Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

22

Defendant seeks relief from a grant of summary judgment in

23

Plaintiff’s favor (Doc. #43) and an award of attorneys’ fees in

24

Plaintiff’s favor (Doc. #52).

25

after reviewing all of the admissible evidence submitted by

26

Plaintiff in support of his motion and determining that Plaintiff

27

met his initial burden by showing an absence of triable material

28

facts in this case.

The Court granted summary judgment

Defendant did not oppose the motion and
1

1

therefore did not produce any evidence showing that a genuine

2

dispute of material fact existed.

3

Plaintiff’s motion for fees based on evidence submitted by

4

Plaintiff and his accompanying legal arguments.

5

also unopposed.

Similarly, the Court granted

This motion was

6

Defendant’s motion is not properly before the Court.

7

Defendant seeks relief from a default judgment, but no default

8

judgment was entered in this case.

9

judgment on the merits, and the Court issued a reasoned decision

Plaintiff moved for summary

10

on the merits of this case and the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s

11

evidence, determining that Plaintiff was entitled to judgment.

12

The same is true of Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees – that

13

motion was granted on the merits of Plaintiff’s motion, not

14

through default.

15

reconsideration of a motion, reconsideration in that context

16

requires a party to show what new facts of circumstances support

17

a different result and why those new facts or circumstances were

18

not presented at the time of the prior motion.

19

230(j).

20

that standard.

21

While the Local Rules permit a party to seek

E.D. Cal. R.

The record currently before the Court does not satisfy

Even if the Court’s entry of judgment against Defendant

22

somehow constitutes a default judgment, his motion still fails.

23

Defendant’s motion is brought pursuant to California Code of

24

Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 473(b).

25

Procedure, however, govern procedure in federal courts.

26

Civ. P. 1.

27

apply to motions seeking relief from a default judgment.

28

both rules, courts examine three factors to determine if a party

The Federal Rules of Civil
Fed. R.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b)

2

Under

1

is entitled to relief from a default judgment: “(1) whether the

2

party seeking to set aside the default engaged in culpable

3

conduct that led to the default; (2) whether it had no

4

meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default

5

judgment would prejudice the other party.”

6

Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085,

7

1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation and internal alterations

8

omitted).

9

denied, but default judgments are an extreme result, disfavored

United States v.

If any one of the factors is present, relief may be

10

where a case can be decided on the merits.

11

seeking relief from a judgment bears the burden of showing that

12

the factors favor vacating a judgment.

13

v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001).

14

Id.

The party

TCI Group Life Ins. Plan

In support of his motion seeking relief from the Court’s

15

grant of summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, Defendant relies

16

on two arguments.

17

his parents were ill and he never received notice of Plaintiff’s

18

motion for summary judgment.

19

his time in India is devoid of any meaningful details such as

20

when he was in India, for how long, or why he was unable to

21

follow the course of the present litigation while he was out of

22

the country.

23

sufficient to determine whether the entry of judgment resulted

24

from Defendant’s own conduct, and Defendant has therefore not met

25

his burden with respect to this factor.

Defendant argues that he was in India because

Defendant’s declaration concerning

The record before the Court is simply not

26

Defendant also argues that he never received notice of

27

Plaintiff’s motion for fees, but the record does not support that

28

finding.

When Defendant’s counsel associated with this case on
3

1

February 25, 2013, he gained access to the Court’s electronic

2

filing system and therefore had notice of the pending fees

3

motion.

4

case would have revealed that the pending fees motion was

5

continued specifically to ensure that Defendant received proper

6

notice and had time to obtain counsel (Doc. #52).

7

to Plaintiff’s motion was not due until April 3, 2013.

8

does not explain why the month between his counsel’s association

9

and the deadline for the opposition was not sufficient.

Even a cursory review of the procedural posture of the

The opposition
Defendant

10

Defendant’s motion fails because his counsel’s culpable conduct

11

caused Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees to be

12

granted.

13

Defendant also points out that his first attorney passed

14

away about a month after the opposition to Plaintiff’s summary

15

judgment motion was due.

16

may justify reconsideration of a motion, Defendant fails to

17

indicate what meritorious defense, if any, he would offer in

18

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment if the

19

Court were to reconsider it.

20

however, the defendant presents no meritorious defense, then

21

nothing but pointless delay can result from reopening the

22

judgment.”)

23

While an attorney’s unexpected death

TCI Group, 244 F.3d at 696. (“If,

The third factor – prejudice to the nonmoving party – is not

24

readily apparent in this case.

25

limit Plaintiff’s ability to pursue the case, not merely delay

26

resolution.

27

prejudiced by being forced to relitigate his motions, not that he

28

would be unable to do so.

Id. at 701.

Prejudice in this context must

Plaintiff only argues that he would be

Nevertheless, the arguable lack of
4

1

prejudice is not a legally sufficient reason to grant Defendant’s

2

motion herein.

3

Defendant fails to show that he is entitled to relief from

4

the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorneys’ fees in

5

this case.

For this reason, his motion is denied.

6

2.

Monetary Sanctions

7

In the Court’s April 15, 2013 minute order (Doc. #56),

8

Defendant’s counsel Robert McCann was ordered to show cause for

9

failing to oppose Plaintiff’s motion for fees as required by

10

Local Rule 230(c) or pay sanctions in the amount of $150 within

11

ten days.

12

minute order, and insofar as the motion to set aside constitutes

13

a response it is insufficient for the reasons discussed in the

14

preceding section.

15

day deadline.

16

not shown good cause for failing to oppose Plaintiff’s fees

17

motion, and he is therefore ordered to pay monetary sanctions in

18

the amount of $150.00 to the Clerk of Court within ten (10) days.

19
20

Mr. McCann did not respond directly to the Court’s

The motion was also filed past the Court’s 10

The Court accordingly finds that Mr. McCann has

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 3, 2013

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5