Princeton Developments, LLC v. Baylor et al

Filing 121

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANT MIA BALDASSARIS 111 MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

PRINCETON DEVELOPMENTS, LLC,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 11-4471 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT MIA
BALDASSARI’S
MOTION TO SET
ASIDE DEFAULT
(Docket No. 111)

v.
BRYNEE K. BAYLOR; BAYLOR &
JACKSON, PLLC; THE MILAN GROUP,
INC.; FRANK LORENZO; GPH
HOLDINGS, LLC; PATRICK LEWIS;
BRETT A. COOPER; DAWN R. JACKSON;
SUSAN C. KEVRA; MIA C.
BALDASSARI; ELMO BALDASSARI;
GLOBAL FUNDING SYSTEMS; and THE
LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN C. KEVRA,
Defendants.
________________________________/

Pro se Defendant Mia Baldassari moves to set aside the
14
default entered against her on October 3, 2012.

Plaintiff

Princeton Developments, LLC opposes the motion.

The Court takes

15
16
the motion under submission on the papers and GRANTS it.
17
BACKGROUND
18
On August 24, 2012, Baldassari was served with the summons
19
and complaint in the instant case.

Docket No. 97.

20
On September 5, 2012, Baldassari mailed an answer to the
21
complaint in the instant case, along with an answer to the
22
complaint in a related case, Kuman Banque, LLC v. Baylor, Case No.
23
11-4472, to the Clerk of the Court for filing.

Mot. to Set Aside

24
Default,1 Docket No. 111, ¶ 3; Baldassari Reply Decl., Ex. 1
25
26
27
28

1

Baldassari has attested to the truthfulness of the
statements made in her motion under penalty of perjury. Mot. to
Set Aside Default, 3.

1

(domestic return receipt from USPS, showing that delivery was made

2

on September 10, 2012).2

3

a copy of both answers to Plaintiff’s attorney on September 7,

4

2012.

5

Baldassari’s answer in the Kuman Banque case was received by the

6

Court and filed on September 10, 2012.

7

11-4472.

8

case.

9

Baldassari also attests that she emailed

Mot. to Set Aside Default ¶ 4; Baldassari Reply Decl. ¶ 5.

Docket No. 78 in Case No.

However, no answer was received or filed in the instant

Baldassari further states that she received a copy of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default against her on October 4,

11

2012, three days after it was filed and the day after it was

12

granted.

13

¶ 6; see also Docket Nos. 98, 99.

14

emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a copy of her answer in the instant

15

case.

16

Ex. 2.

17

Mot. to Set Aside Default ¶ 5; Baldassari Reply Decl.
On October 8, 2012, she again

Mot. to Set Aside Default ¶ 6; Baldassari Reply Decl. ¶ 7 &

On October 15, 2012, Baldassari filed a motion to appear by

18

telephone at the case management conferences scheduled for October

19

31, 2012 in both the instant action and the Kuman Banque case.

20

Docket No. 100.

21

On October 29, 2012, the Court continued the case management

22

conferences until January 23, 2013.

23

time, the Court informed Baldassari that she was in default in

24

this action and that, if she wished to defend the claims asserted

Docket No. 108.

At that

25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff has
Baldassari submitted
7-3(d)(1) (providing
filed and served not
reply).

not objected to the new evidence that
with her reply. See Civil Local Rule
that any objections to reply evidence must be
more than seven days after the filing of the
2

1

against her in that case, she had to make a motion to set aside

2

the entry of default and show good cause to do so under Federal

3

Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c).

4

proposed answer to any such motion.

5

The Court directed her to attach a

On November 1, 2012, Baldassari learned that default had been
entered against her and shortly thereafter contacted the Court’s

7

courtroom deputy, who advised her that the Court had received her

8

answer in the Kuman Banque action and not in the instant case.

9

Mot. to Set Aside Default ¶¶ 8-9; Baldassari Reply Decl. ¶ 9-10.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

On November 9, 2012, Baldassari filed the instant motion to

11

set aside the default and simultaneously filed her proposed

12

answer.

Docket Nos. 111 and 112.

13
14

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) provides that a court

15

“may set aside an entry of default for good cause.”

16

court has discretion to determine whether a party demonstrates

17

“good cause.”

18

court’s discretion is particularly broad where a party seeks to

19

set aside an entry of default rather than a default judgment.

20

Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir.

21

1986).

22

The district

Madsen v. Bumb, 419 F.2d 4, 6 (9th Cir. 1969).

The

In evaluating whether a party has demonstrated good cause, a

23

district court may consider the following factors: (1) whether the

24

defendant’s culpable conduct led to the default; (2) whether the

25

defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) whether setting aside

26

the default would prejudice the plaintiff.

27

Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001).

28

judgments are “ordinarily disfavored” because “[c]ases should be
3

TCI Group Life Ins.
Default

1

decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.”

2

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986).

3

“timely relief is sought . . . and the movant has a meritorious

4

defense,” a court must resolve any doubt in favor of setting aside

5

the default.

6

vacate the entry of default bears the burden of demonstrating that

7

these factors favor doing so.

8
9

Mendoza, 783 F.2d at 945-46.

Eitel v.

Thus, whenever

The party seeking to

TCI, 244 F.3d at 696.

Baldassari has demonstrated that she acted diligently in
attempting to answer the complaint in the instant case.

Plaintiff

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

argues that she did not demonstrate good cause because “the clerk

11

has explained that the only answer received was in response to the

12

Kuman complaint.”

13

that she did mail the answer to the Court along with her answer in

14

the related case but that it did not arrive for an unknown reason.

15

Opp. at 2.

However, Baldassari has attested

In addition, there is no evidence that setting aside

16

Baldassari’s default would prejudice Plaintiff, and Baldassari has

17

offered a potentially meritorious defense to Plaintiff’s claims

18

against her.

19

(1AC) that Defendant The Milan Group, Inc. is the alter ego of

20

Baldassari, that, from August 2010 to August 2011, she conspired

21

with other Defendants to defraud Plaintiff of $325,000 and that

22

she received part of the money of which Plaintiff was defrauded.

23

In her proposed answer, Baldassari denies Plaintiff’s allegations

24

and states that she had no involvement with the Milan Group after

25

December 2009, that she was not involved with, and had no

26

knowledge of, the alleged scheme or the purported conspirators,

27

and that she did not receive any money from it.

Plaintiff alleges in the first amended complaint

28
4

1

Plaintiff contends that the motion should be denied
nonetheless because Baldassari “has not followed the motion

3

procedure required by Local Rule 7-2” and did not “provide any

4

notice of motion or any memorandum of points and authorities.”

5

Opp. at 1-2.

6

in support of her argument, in her motion Baldassari set forth a

7

statement of the relevant facts and provided sufficient grounds

8

for the relief requested.

9

notice the motion for hearing, the Clerk scheduled a hearing date

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

for the motion in accordance with the Court’s prior order setting

11

a date.

12

exercises its discretion to excuse Baldassari’s failure to comply

13

with the local rules.

14

Guaranty Co., 342 F.2d 951, 954 (9th Cir. 1965); Phoenix Global

15

Ventures, LLC v. Phoenix Hotel Assocs., Ltd., 422 F.3d 72, 76 (2d

16

Cir. 2005); Nvidia Corp. v. United States Bankr. Court, 2006 U.S.

17

Dist. LEXIS 94417, at *13-14 (N.D. Cal.).3

However, although she did not cite legal authorities

See Docket Nos. 108, 115.

18
19

Further, although Baldassari failed to

In this instance, the Court

See Allen v. United States Fidelity &

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

20

Baldassari’s motion to set aside the default entered against her

21

(Docket No. 111).

The Clerk of the Court is directed to set aside

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Although the Court excuses the violation of the Civil Local
Rules in this instance, the pro se parties in this action are
reminded that they are required to follow the Federal Rules and
all applicable local rules. See Civil Local Rule 3-9(a).
The Court has several resources to provide information for
individuals who are representing themselves in civil cases in this
district, which can be accessed at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. These resources
include a handbook for pro se litigants, which can be downloaded
at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.
5

1

the default of Baldassari.

2

proposed answer as of the date of this Order (Docket No. 112).

3
4
5

The Court deems filed Baldassari’s

The Court maintains the case management conference currently
set for Wednesday, January 23, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 1/16/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6