Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services District, et al.

Filing 173

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 3/7/2024 RECOMMENDING that 140 , 141 , 142 , & 143 Motion for Default Judgment be denied. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to this Findings and Recommendations due within 14 days after being served these findings and recommendations. (Clemente Licea, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KIMBERLY R. OLSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-CV-0646-KJM-DMC

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

HORNBROOK COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the

19

Court are Plaintiff’s motions for default judgments against Defendants Puckett, Hornbrook

20

Community Bible Church, Crittenden, Martin, and King (defaulted Defendants). See ECF Nos.

21

140, 142, and 143.

22
23
24

I. BACKGROUND
After filing of the third amended complaint, the following defendants waived

25

service: Barnes, Hornbrook Community Bible Church, Crittenden (HCBC), Puckett, Hornbrook

26

Community Services District (HCSD), Martin, Brown, Goff, Gifford, Hanson, see ECF No. 74,

27

Bowles, see ECF No. 85, and King, see ECF No. 98. After the time to respond expired, and on

28

Plaintiff’s request, the Clerk of the Court entered defaults for Defendants Brown, Crittenden,
1

1

Hanson, HCBC, HCSD, Martin, Puckett, Dingman, and King. See ECF Nos. 93 and 114.

2

Plaintiff has filed four separate motions for default judgments as against Defendants HCSD,

3

Brown, Hanson, Puckett, see ECF No. 140, Dingman, see ECF No. 141, HCBC, Crittenden,

4

Martin, see ECF No. 142, and King, see ECF No. 143. Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 141 relating

5

only to Defendant Dingman is resolved by separate order granting various defendants’ request to

6

set aside defaults and proceed on a proposed answer to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint.

7
II. DISCUSSION

8
9

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for default judgments against the defaulted

10

Defendants, See ECF Nos. 140, 142, and 143. Collectively, Plaintiff’s motions relate to

11

Defendants HCSD, Brown, Hanson, Puckett, see ECF No. 140, HCBC, Crittenden, Martin, see

12

ECF No. 142, and King, see ECF No. 143. In response to Plaintiff’s motions at ECF Nos. 140

13

and 141, Defendants HCSC, Hanson, Brown, Barnes, Dingman, Goff, and Bowles have filed a

14

request to set aside defaults along with a proposed answer to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint.

15

See ECF No. 148. By separate order, the Court grants these Defendants’ request to set aside

16

defaults – except as to Goff, Barnes, and Bowles – and directs filing of the proposed answer to

17

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. No defaults were entered as to Defendants Goff, Barnes, and

18

Bowles, and Defendants Barnes and Bowles have filed answers to the third amended complaint.

19

This order partially resolves ECF No. 140. Addressed in these findings and recommendations are

20

Plaintiff’s motions at ECF Nos. 140, 142, and 143 as to defaulted Defendants Puckett, HCBC,

21

Crittenden, Martin, and King.

22

Whether to grant or deny default judgment is within the discretion of the Court.

23

See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In exercising this discretion, the

24

Court considers the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is

25

denied; (2) the substantive merits of plaintiff’s claims; (3) the sufficiency of the claims raised in

26

the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material

27

facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy favoring

28

decisions on the merits when reasonably possible. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72
2

1

(9th Cir 1986). Regarding the last factor, a decision on the merits is impractical, if not impossible,

2

where defendants refuse to defend. See Pepsico, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172,

3

1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

4

Where a defendant has failed to respond to the complaint, the Court presumes that

5

all well-pleaded factual allegations relating to liability are true. See Geddes v. United Financial

6

Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam); Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386 (9th

7

Cir. 1978); Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (per

8

curiam); see also Discovery Communications, Inc. v. Animal Planet, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 1282,

9

1288 (C.D. Cal. 2001). Therefore, when determining liability, a defendant's default functions as

10

an admission of the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact. See Panning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d

11

1386 (9th Cir. 1978). However, the Court has the responsibility of determining whether the facts

12

alleged in the complaint state a claim which can support the judgment. See Danning v. Lavine,

13

572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978). For this reason, the district court does not abuse its

14

discretion in denying default judgment where the factual allegations as to liability lack merit. See

15

Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1092-93.

16

While factual allegations concerning liability are deemed admitted upon a

17

defendant’s default, the Court does not presume that any factual allegations relating to the amount

18

of damages suffered are true. See Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. The Court must ensure that the

19

amount of damages awarded is reasonable and demonstrated by the evidence. See id. In

20

discharging its responsibilities, the Court may conduct such hearings and make such orders as it

21

deems necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). In assessing damages, the Court must review the

22

facts of record, requesting more information if necessary, to establish the amount to which the

23

plaintiff is lawfully entitled. See Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 (1944).

24

Where actual damages are not proved, it may be appropriate in some cases to

25

award nominal damages to vindicate the deprivation of certain rights. See Cummings v. Connell,

26

402 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2005). Nominal damages may be appropriate under California law for

27

the torts of trespass, see Consterisan v. Tejon Ranch Co., 255 Cal.App.2d 57, 60 (5th Dist. 1967),

28

assault, see Liljefelt v. Blum, 33 Cal.App.721 (1st Dist. 1917) (per curiam), loss of publicity, see
3

1

Ericson v. Playgirl, Inc., 73 Cal.App.3d 850, 859 (2nd Dist. 1977), as well as breach of contract,

2

see id. As the term implies, nominal damages is defined as a mere token or trifle. See Cummings,

3

402 F.3d at 943.

4

Here, in exercising its responsibility to ensure that the facts alleged, when

5

presumed true, state claims which can support liability, the Court finds that the operative third

6

amended complaint here does not. The third amended complaint is not a well-pleaded complaint.

7

It consists of 74 typed pages of largely confusing and overlapping allegations of generalized

8

wrongdoing. See ECF No. 40. Though some defendants have elected to answer the third

9

amended complaint, this is not necessarily an indication that the third amended complaint states

10

facts establishing liability for purposes of a default judgment. It may well be that answering

11

defendants will avail themselves of the discovery process to more fully define the contours of

12

Plaintiff’s various claims. In any event, the Court is limited to those factual allegations contained

13

within the four corners of the third amended complaint, and the Court is not convinced that the

14

allegations support the extreme measure of entering default judgments.

15
III. CONCLUSION

16
17
18

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as that Plaintiff’s motions
for default judgments, ECF Nos. 140-142, and 143, 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 14 days

21

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

22

with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.

23

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v.

24

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

25

Dated: March 7, 2024

____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
4