UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Berger
Filing
28
ORDER regarding additional steps for a clean record about default (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 3/31/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., a
Delaware corporation,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
Petitioner,
13
No. C 13-03770 LB
ORDER REGARDING DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
v.
14
HENRIQUE BERGER, an individual,
15
Respondent.
_____________________________________/
16
17
In thinking about the procedural posture of this case, with a non-appearing respondent, the court
18
will not have jurisdiction to enter judgment and instead will have to order the case reassigned and
19
recommend that the district court confirm the award and enter judgment. For a clean record on a
20
default judgment, the court’s view is that the right process is for petitioner to seek entry of default
21
from the clerk of the court and then move for a default judgment. This can be done on an
22
abbreviated time line.
23
The general standard (which the court borrows from one of its recent orders) is as follows:
24
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a plaintiff may apply to the district court
25
for—and the court may grant—a default judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead or
26
otherwise defend an action. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 1986). Default
27
judgments are generally disfavored because “cases should be decided on the merits whenever
28
reasonably possible.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). The court must
consider the following factors when deciding whether to use its discretion to grant a motion for
C 13-03770
ORDER
1
default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the plaintiff’s
2
substantive claims; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action;
3
(5) the possibility of a dispute about the material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable
4
neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions
5
on the merits. Id. at 1471-72.
6
In the context of a petition to enforce the arbitration award, the standard is deferential, and the
7
court recites the above factors only for context. The court’s view is that after the clerk’s office
8
issues the default, Petitioner can file a very short motion for default judgment that incorporates by
9
reference the motion to confirm the arbitration award. Petitioner then would serve both on petitioner
proof of service. Then the record would be clean. The court is not opposed to keeping the matter on
12
For the Northern District of California
by email, give two weeks to oppose it (which is the normal time under the local rules), and file a
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
calendar for April 17, 2014. The court keeps defaulted matters on calendar for a clean record and
13
for clear notice to a respondent about the obligation to respond.
14
15
16
17
If counsel thinks a different process is required, or thinks that the time frame should be different,
he should notify the court by April 1, 2014 (the date for the reply brief).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 13-03770
ORDER
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?