Tran v. Gore et al

Filing 25

ORDER Denying 21 Motions for Entry of Default, Default Judgment, Summary Judgment, and Sanctions. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 6/27/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)(jrd)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOANG MINH TRAN, Case No. 10cv2457 BTM(WVG) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND SANCTIONS v. 13 14 15 WILLIAM GORE, et al. Defendants. 16 In an order filed on May 23, 2012, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause why 17 default should not be entered against them for failing to respond to the Complaint. The Court 18 explained that it appeared that the U.S. Marshal had served Defendants by substituted 19 service under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.10. On May 31, 2012, Defendants filed a response 20 to the OSC as well as an Answer. Each of the defendants state that they are not aware that 21 a summons and complaint was left for them at their place of work. Defendants also argue 22 that Plaintiff has made no showing that personal service was ever attempted before resorting 23 to substituted service under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.10. Without an evidentiary hearing, 24 the Court cannot make any finding whether service was properly effectuated. 25 The Court notes, however, that at oral argument, Defendants’ counsel represented 26 that Defendants received the complaint and a waiver form in their mailboxes. (Hearing Tr. 27 at 6, 9.) Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2), if a defendant fails, without good cause, to sign and 28 return a waiver, in the event that service is eventually effected, the court must impose on the 1 10cv2457 BTM(WVG) 1 defendant the expenses incurred in making service and the reasonable expenses, including 2 attorney’s fees, of any motion required to collect those service expenses. The purpose of 3 this provision is to “foster cooperation among adversaries and counsel” and “to impose upon 4 the defendant those costs that could have been avoided if the defendant had cooperated 5 reasonably in the manner prescribed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2), Advisory Committee note on 6 1993 amendments. Defendants did not execute the waiver of service, and counsel for 7 Defendants informed Plaintiff that service had not been accomplished. (Tr. at 5.) Although 8 Defendants were not required to waive service, declining to waive in a case such as this, 9 where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, results in the U.S. Marshal Service taking 10 time out from their important duties of protecting the community to effect service on deputy 11 sheriffs. Given the potential for interference with the U.S. Marshal’s law enforcement duties 12 and the risk of service expenses eventually being taxed against the defendants, it makes little 13 sense to the Court to require the U.S. Marshal to jump through the hoops of effecting 14 personal service. 15 However, since Defendants have filed an answer and are willing to proceed with the 16 case, the issue of service is now moot. Generally, default judgments are disfavored, and 17 cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible. Westchester Fire 18 Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 585 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009). Given Defendants’ willingness to 19 participate in the litigation and the lack of any apparent prejudice to Plaintiff at this time, the 20 Court declines to enter default against Defendants. See Tryon v. AgriNova Corp., Inc., 2011 21 WL 332415 (D. Md. 2011) (court denied motion for entry of default after the defendant filed 22 its answer even though defendant’s answer was untimely). 23 Plaintiff’s motion to enter default against Defendants is DENIED. The Court also 24 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, sanctions, and summary judgment [Doc. No. 25 21] based on Defendants’ failure to file an answer. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: June 27, 2012 28 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge United States District Court 2 10cv2457 BTM(WVG)

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?