Turner v. Ahern et al

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting 12 Motion to Set Aside Default (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 United States District Court 3 Northern District of California 4 5 6 STEPHEN B. TURNER, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 10 v. Case No.: 12-cv-6174 KAW ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT GREGORY J. AHERN, et al., Defendants. Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 On February 22, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to set aside the Clerk's entry of default in this case, which is currently set for hearing on April 4, 2013. 14 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff's opposition was due on March 8, 2013. 15 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, which constitutes grounds for granting Defendant's motion in 16 and of itself. See Judge Westmore's Standing Order at 5 ("The failure of the opposing party to file 17 a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute consent to 18 the granting of the motion"). 19 Moreover, Defendants' motion to set aside the default is meritorious. A court may set 20 aside an entry of default for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). To determine whether good cause 21 exists, the court must consider three factors: 1) whether the moving party engaged in culpable 22 conduct that led to the default; 2) whether there was a meritorious defense; and 3) whether the 23 other party would be prejudiced. United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. 24 Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). There is a strong policy in favor of deciding cases 25 on the merits, and a court's refusal to relieve a party of a default is considered a harsh sanction 26 and appropriate only in extreme circumstances. Id. 27 28 Defendants' motion and Defendants' counsel's affidavit explains that Defendants' counsel was unexpectedly taken ill on February 15, 2013, and was unable to work until February 21, 1 2013, the day after the responsive pleading was due. Default was entered by the Clerk on 2 February 21, 2013. Defendants' counsel filed her motion to set aside the entry of default the very 3 next day. Given these facts, Defendants' conduct was not culpable. See TCI Group Life Ins. Plan 4 v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 697 (9th Cir. 2001) (in order for conduct to be considered culpable, 5 the defendant must have acted in bad faith). 6 Defendants argue that they have meritorious defenses to Plaintiff's claims, including that 7 the complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. Defendants have filed a 8 proposed motion to dismiss, which sets out this argument in more detail. All that is necessary to 9 satisfy the “meritorious defense” requirement is to “allege sufficient facts that, if true, would Northern District of California constitute a defense.” Id. at 697. Defendants' allegation that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a 11 United States District Court 10 claim upon which relief can be granted meets this standard. 12 Finally, there is no indication that Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the entry of default is set 13 aside. See id. at 701 (to be considered prejudicial, there must be "tangible harm such as loss of 14 evidence, increased difficulties of discovery, or greater opportunity for fraud or collusion"). 15 Here, Defendants filed their motion to set aside the entry of default one day after it was entered 16 and two days after their response to the complaint was due. As such, there has been no impact of 17 significance that would be prejudicial to Plaintiff's ability to prosecute his case. 18 19 20 21 22 For the reasons explained above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' motion to set aside the clerk's entry of default is GRANTED, and the April 4, 2013 hearing date is VACATED; and 2. Within seven days of the date of this order, Defendants shall file their proposed motion to dismiss. 23 24 Dated: March 21, 2013 25 ___________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?