Soares v. Lorono et al

Filing 94

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND GRANTING MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT 49 56 26 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/8/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 12-05979 SI

PAUL FAIRFAX SOARES,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING MOTION TO SET ASIDE
ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY LORONO, et al.,
Defendants.

/

13
14
Plaintiff Soares’s motion for entry of default judgment and defendant Lorono’s motion to set
15
aside entry of default are currently scheduled for hearing on March 1, 2013. Pursuant to Civil Local
16
Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds these matters appropriate for resolution without oral argument and hereby
17
VACATES the hearing. Having considered the papers submitted, and for good cause shown, the Court
18
hereby DENIES the motion for entry of default judgment and GRANTS the motion to set aside the entry
19
of default so that this matter may be heard on its merits. The Case Management Conference set for
20
March 1, 2013 at 2:30 pm remains on calendar.
21
This case was filed on May 16, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by
22
plaintiff Soares. Defendant Lorono was served on June 8, 2012. Ten days later, Lorono filed an
23
application for an extension of time to answer the complaint. His time was extended to July 13, 2012.
24
On that date, he filed a motion to dismiss the case and a motion to transfer. On November 16, 2012, the
25
case was transferred to the Northern District of California. The parties agreed that Lorono would have
26
until December 5, 2012 to file his answer. On December 13, 2012, Lorono filed an answer to the
27
complaint. The next day, a clerk’s notice of an Entry of Default was entered against Lorono.
28

1

“[D]efault judgments are ordinarily disfavored. Cases should be decided upon their merits

2

whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

3

set aside entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) for “good cause shown.”

4

Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Rests. Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2004). The

5

“good cause” analysis considers three disjunctive factors: (1) whether defendant engaged in cuplable

6

conduct that led to default; (2) whether defendant has a meritorious defense; or (3) whether plaintiff

7

would be prejudiced by setting aside the default. Id. at 926. The court’s discretion is especially broad

8

where it is an entry of default that is being set aside, rather than a default judgment. Mendoza v. Wight

9

Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1986).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Here, the Court finds that defendant Lorono has shown good cause for setting aside the entry of

11

default. Lorono avers that, although he is currently represented, he represented himself as a pro se

12

defendant in the New Jersey action, and was unaware that the change of venue set a deadline to answer

13

plaintiff’s complaint. Lorono Decl. ¶¶ 16-17. Additionally, Lorono appears to have a meritorious

14

defense, as he claims Soares has not shown that the roof was defective, and that if it was defective,

15

another party was at fault. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13; Hollingsworth Decl. ¶¶ 3-6. Moreover, Lorono’s answer was

16

only eight days later than the agreed deadline. This brief delay does not substantially prejudice Soares.

17

Therefore, Lorono has shown that he did not engage in culpable conduct, he may have a meritorious

18

defense, and Soares would not suffer prejudice if the default is set aside. Especially because default

19

judgments are disfavored, and because the Court has especially broad discretion when only an entry of

20

default has been entered, the Court finds that there is good cause to set aside the entry of default.

21

Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and GRANTS

22

defendant’s motion to set aside the entry of default. Any other pending motions are dismissed without

23

prejudice, to be addressed at the Case Management Conference on March 1, 2013 at 2:30 pm.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: February 8, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

28
2