Dastime Group Limited et al v. Vartanyan

Filing 23

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 21 Administrative Motion to Permit Filing or Shorten Time. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KONSTANTIN GRIGORISHIN, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-05274-JCS

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

ALEXANDER VARTANYAN,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
TO PERMIT FILING OR TO SHORTEN
TIME FOR HEARING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 21

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On January 3, 2017, Plaintiffs sought to file a motion for default judgment noticed for a

13

hearing on January 13, 2017. The Clerk rejected the filing for failure to comply with this Court’s

14

local rules regarding noticed motions. Plaintiffs now move for an order either instructing Clerk to

15

file the motion with the January 13 hearing date, or shortening time for a hearing and allowing

16

Plaintiffs to file a new motion noticed for January 13.

17

Plaintiffs argue that a shortened schedule should be permitted because Rule 55(b)(2) only

18

requires that a party against whom default judgment is sought be given seven days’ notice before a

19

hearing if that party has appeared in the case, which Defendant Alexander Vartanyan has not, and

20

because the briefing schedule that underlies the usual 35-day notice period set by Civil Local Rule

21

7-2 is not applicable in a case where the defendant has not appeared.

22

Rule 55(b)(2) sets a minimum notice period under certain circumstances to protect parties

23

that have appeared in litigation from facing default judgment without adequate time to respond

24

and appear at the hearing. Nothing in that rule prohibits a court from setting a longer notice period

25

than that federally prescribed minimum. In this Court, Civil Local Rule 7-2(a) provides that “all

26

motions must be filed, served and noticed in writing . . . for hearing not less than 35 days after

27

filing of the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-2(a) (emphasis added). The local rules provide for certain

28

exceptions to that rule, including for administrative motions and motions made during the course

1

of trial, but make no exception for motions for default judgment. And while an opposition brief

2

may be unlikely where a defendant has not appeared, the notice period serves other important

3

purposes besides accommodating the briefing schedule, including giving a defendant in default an

4

opportunity to seek to set aside the entry of default and allowing the Court adequate time to

5

consider the moving parties’ arguments as to why default judgment is warranted.

6

Defendants’ only argument as to why an expedited hearing is necessary (as opposed to
merely permissible) is that “the other parties to the arbitration are claiming that that the Arbitrator

8

cannot enter an enforceable award as to them until the issue of Vartanyan’s joinder and the

9

adjudication of any claims against Vartanyan have also been resolved.” Admin. Mot. (dkt. 21) at

10

3; Matayoshi Decl. (dkt. 21-1) ¶ 2. Because Defendants fail to identify any actual prejudice that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

would result from delaying the arbitrator’s final decision by a matter of weeks, this argument is

12

inadequate. Defendants’ administrative motion is therefore DENIED.

13
14
15
16
17
18

Defendants are instructed to refile their motion for default judgment in compliance with
the local rules, noticed for a hearing at least 35 days from the date of refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2017
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2