Sarytchev v. Korolev et al

Filing 57

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 51 Motion to Set Aside Default without prejudice. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

EUREKA DIVISION

6
7

SERGEI SARYTCHEV,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
VIXTOR KOROLEV, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.:1:12-cv-02284-NJV
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET
ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 51

12
13

Defendants’ “Motion To Set Aside Default Judgment” is before this court. See Doc. No.

14

51. This case is in federal court. Defendants’ motion therefore should be based on Federal Rule

15

of Civil Procedure 55(c), not California Code of Civil Procedure 473(b). Because Defendants fail

16

to address the relevant legal standard or caselaw, their motion is denied. Given the Ninth

17

Circuit’s “oft stated commitment to deciding cases on the merits whenever possible” (United

18

States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.

19

2010)), the motion is denied without prejudice.

20

Defendants are ordered to familiarize themselves with the Local Rules of the Northern

21

District of California and the Standing Orders of this court. No later than March 5, 2013,

22

Defendants shall file a motion to set aside entry of default. They shall analyze the relevant issues

23

using the appropriate (federal) rules and caselaw and support their analysis with declarations

24

and/or other competent evidence to establish that there is good cause to set aside the default.

25

They also shall comply with the formatting requirements of the Northern District of California.

26

See N.D. L.R. 3-4.

27
28

Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition and declaration to address any points he did
not raise in Doc. No. 54, or may rely on his present opposition.

1

Defendants may file a reply.

2

The March 5, 2013 hearing is continued until April 2, 2013 for oral argument. The parties

3

may appear telephonically and shall contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy to make those

4

arrangements.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: February 19, 2013

9

________________________
Nandor J. Vadas
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2