Gingras v. Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 29 Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Default. Defendant Metro View Consulting to file response to the Complaint by 4/12/2013. The Court VACATES the hearing set for March 19, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DI
D
ISTRICT COU
URT

4

NORTHER DISTRICT OF CALIFO
RN
T
ORNIA

5
6

JOH P GINGRA ,
HN
AS

7

Plaintiff,

8
9
10

O RDER GRAN
NTING DEFE
ENDANT’S MOTION
T O SET ASIDE CLERK’S DEFAULT
E

vs.
COU
UNTY OF SAC
CRAMENTO, CALIFORNI
IA
STA TEACHE RETIREM
ATE
ERS
MENT SYSTE , and
EM
MET VIEW CONSULTING,
TRO
G

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

C
Case No.: 12
2-CV-05509 YGR

Defe
endants.

12

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant County of Sa
f
C
acramento o
over-garnishe $48,000.0 in pasted
00

13
14

due child support obligation from an ac
ns
ccount Plain
ntiff has with Defendant California S
h
State

15

Teac
chers Retirem System (“CalSTRS and that the County of Sacrame
ment
m
S”),
t
y
ento hired a p
private

16

inve
estigation fir Defendan MetroVie Consultin to conduc surveillan on Plaint
rm,
nt
ew
ng,
ct
nce
tiff.

17

Plaintiff’s Comp
plaint alleges two claims against Me
s
etroView Co
onsulting: (1 Intentiona and
1)
al

18

Neg
gligent Emot
tional Distress and (2) In
nvasion of Pr
rivacy. Met
troView Con
nsulting has filed a

19

mot
tion to set aside a clerk’s default ente
s
ered against it.
Having considered th papers su
c
he
ubmitted, the Court finds that MetroV
e
s
View Consu
ulting has

20
21

satis
sfied the goo cause stan
od
ndard require to set asid the Clerk Default.1 Therefore, and for the
ed
de
k’s

22

reas
sons set forth below, the Court GRAN the Moti and SET ASIDE the Clerk’s Def
h
NTS
ion
TS
fault.

23

I.

BACKG
GROUND

24

Defenda MetroVie Consultin was serve with the s
ant
ew
ng
ed
summons and complaint by certified
d

25

mail delivered on October 29, 2012. (D No. 5.) On January 25, 2013, a
l,
o
2
Dkt.
y
after the time for filing a
e

26

resp
ponse to the Complaint had elapsed, Plaintiff file a Motion for Entry of Default as t Defendant
C
h
ed
f
to

27
28

1

Pur
rsuant to Fede Rule of Civil Procedu 78(b) and Civil Local R 7-1(b), th Court finds this motion
eral
C
ure
Rule
he
appr
ropriate for de
ecision withou oral argum
ut
ment. Accordi
ingly, the Cou VACATES the hearing s for March
urt
S
set
h
19, 2013.
2

1

Met
troView Con
nsulting. (Dk No. 26.) A Clerk’s D
kt.
Default was entered on F
February 4, 2
2013. (Dkt.

2

No. 28.) MetroV
View Consu
ulting has now moved to set aside the Clerk’s De
e
efault entered against it.

3

M
f
ion
y
which the Co
ourt
On March 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Moti for Entry of Default Judgment, w

4

cons
strues as an opposition to the request to set aside the Clerk’s Default.
o
e
s

5

II.

L
RD
LEGAL STANDAR
ed.
Under Rule 55(c), a “court may set aside an entry of def
R
fault for good cause.” Fe R. Civ.

6

Pro. 55(c). To determine “g
.
d
good cause,” a court mus “consider[ ] three fact
”
st
[
tors: (1) whe
ether [the

8

part seeking to set aside the default] en
ty
o
ngaged in cu
ulpable condu that led t the defaul (2)
uct
to
lt;

9

whe
ether [it] had [no] merito
d
orious defens or (3) wh
se;
hether reopen
ning the defa judgmen would
ault
nt

10

prejudice” the other party. United State v. Signed P
o
es
Personal Ch
heck No. 730 of Yubran S Mesle,
0
S.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

teration in o
original) (quo
oting Franch Holding II v.
hise
g
615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (alt

12

ntington Rest Group, In 375 F.3d 922, 925-2 (9th Cir. 2
ts.
nc.,
d
26
2004)). Due to the stron policy in
e
ng
Hun

13

favo of decidin cases on th merits, a court’s refus to relieve a party of a default is c
or
ng
he
sal
e
considered a

14

hars sanction and appropriate only in extreme circu
sh
a
e
umstances. Id.

15

III.

16
17

ANALY
YSIS
1.
1

Culpa Conduc
able
ct

“[A] def
fendant’s con
nduct is culp
pable if he ha received a
as
actual or con
nstructive no
otice of the

18

filin of the acti and inten
ng
ion
ntionally fail to answe
led
er.” TCI Gro Life Ins. Plan v. Kno
oup
oebber, 244

19

F.3d 691, 697 (9 Cir. 2001 In this co
d
9th
1).
ontext the te “intentio
erm
onally” requi that the Defendant
ires

20

mus have acted with bad fa
st
d
aith, such as an “intention to take adv
n
vantage of th opposing party,
he

21

inter
rfere with ju
udicial decisi
ionmaking, or otherwise manipulate the legal pr
o
e
e
rocess.” Id.

22

Here, MetroView Co
onsulting’s conduct in n respondin to the sum
c
not
ng
mmons and c
complaint is

23

not the result of culpable co
t
f
onduct within the meanin of Rule 55
n
ng
5(c). Its prin
ncipal, Mr. D
Dillon has

24

subm
mitted an aff
fidavit that in
ndicates that the compan was unsu how to pr
t
ny
ure
roceed and w not
was

25

awa of the leg implicatio of failing to answer.
are
gal
on
g

26
27
28

2.
2

Merit
torious defen
nse

“A defe
endant seekin to vacate a default jud
ng
dgment mus present spe
st
ecific facts th would
hat
cons
stitute a defe
ense. But th burden on a party seek
he
king to vacat a default j
te
judgment is not

2

1

extr
raordinarily heavy.” See TCI Group, supra, 244 F.3d at 700 (citations omitted). All that is
h
e
0
l

2

rement is to “allege suff
nece
essary to sati the “me
isfy
eritorious def
fense” requir
ficient facts t
that, if true,

3

wou constitute a defense.” Id.
uld
e
”
Defenda MetroVie proffers an affidavit i support of two defens
ant
ew
a
in
f
ses: (1) lack of personal
k

4
5

juris
sdiction and (2) a genera denial of th allegation against it. Both woul constitute a defense.
al
he
ns
.
ld
3.
3

6

Preju
udice

laims will be hindered.
The stan
ndard here is whether the Plaintiff’s a
e
ability to pro
osecute its cl
e

7

Falk v. Allen, 73 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Ci 1984). Th requires more harm t
k
39
,
ir.
his
than simply delaying

9

reso
olution of the case or forc
e
cing plaintif to litigate o the merit See TCI G
ff
on
ts.
Group, supra 244 F.3d
a,

10

at 70 To be pr
01.
rejudicial, th delay mus result in so tangible harm, such as the loss of evidence,
he
st
ome
e
h

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

incr
reased difficu
ulties of disc
covery, or gr
reater opport
tunity for fra or collus
aud
sion. Id.
Here, Plaintiff would not suffer prejudice if Clerk’s Def
d
p
fault were se aside. Plai
et
intiff alleges
s

12
13

that MetroView Consulting began its su
w
urveillance o him in Sep
of
ptember or O
October of 20
012. There

14

is no indication that any evidence has be lost or th there ma be increas difficulties on
o
een
hat
ay
sed

15

obta
aining discov
very.

16

IV.

17
18
19
20

CONCL
LUSION
Based on the foregoi analysis, the Court f
n
ing
,
finds that Me
etroView Co
onsulting has set forth
s

facts to satisfy all three facto for settin aside a de
a
ors
ng
efault under Rule 55(c).
Therefor Defendan MetroView Consultin
re,
nt
w
ng’s Motion t Set Aside Entry of De
to
e
efault is
ANTED.
GRA

21

The Cler Default (Dkt. No. 28) is VACAT and SET ASIDE.
rk’s
TED
T

22

Defenda MetroVie Consultin shall file a response t the Compl
ant
ew
ng
to
laint by no later than

23

Apr 12, 2013.
ril

24

This Ord Terminat Dkt. No. 29.
der
tes

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Date: March 13 2013
3,

__
__________
___________
__________
_________
YVON GONZAL ROGERS
NNE
LEZ
UNITED ST
TATES DISTR
RICT COURT JUDGE
T

3