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)
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?