Dastime Group Limited et al v. Vartanyan

Filing 24

Amended Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 21 Administrative Motion to Permit Filing or Shorten Time. This corrects and supersedes 23 the Court's previous Order. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KONSTANTIN GRIGORISHIN, et al., 7 Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 ALEXANDER VARTANYAN, 10 Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-05274-JCS AMENDED1 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE TO PERMIT FILING OR TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 21 On January 3, 2017, Plaintiffs sought to file a motion for default judgment noticed for a 12 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. Plaintiffs argue that a shortened schedule should be permitted because Rule 55(b)(2) only 17 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. Rule 55(b)(2) sets a minimum notice period under certain circumstances to protect parties 22 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 1 28 This amended order corrects and supersedes the Court’s order dated January 5, 2017 (dkt. 23), which erroneously referred to “Defendants” instead of “Plaintiffs” in several instances. 1 filing of the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-2(a) (emphasis added). The local rules provide for certain 2 exceptions to that rule, including for administrative motions and motions made during the course 3 of trial, but make no exception for motions for default judgment. And while an opposition brief 4 may be unlikely where a defendant has not appeared, the notice period serves other important 5 purposes besides accommodating the briefing schedule, including giving a defendant in default an 6 opportunity to seek to set aside the entry of default and allowing the Court adequate time to 7 consider the moving parties’ arguments as to why default judgment is warranted. 8 9 Plaintiffs’ 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 cannot enter an enforceable award as to them until the issue of Vartanyan’s joinder and the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 adjudication of any claims against Vartanyan have also been resolved.” Admin. Mot. (dkt. 21) at 12 3; Matayoshi Decl. (dkt. 21-1) ¶ 2. Because Plaintiffs fail to identify any actual prejudice that 13 would result from delaying the arbitrator’s final decision by a matter of weeks, this argument is 14 inadequate. Plaintiffs’ administrative motion is therefore DENIED. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiffs 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 6, 2017 ______________________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?