Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Global Financial Support, Inc. et al

Filing 87

ORDER Granting 83 Motion to Strike Answer and Enter Default Judgment. The Court Orders and Directs: That Defendant Global Financial Support, Inc's Answer, (ECF Nos. 6, 9), be stricken from the record; That the Clerk of Court enter default against Global; and That the hearing set for February 7, 2020 be vacated. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/30/20. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(waiting for chambers re issuing default) (dlg).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION BUREAU,

14
15

Case No.: 3:15-cv-2440-GPC-WVG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE ANSWER AND ENTER
DEFAULT.

Plaintiff,
v.

16
17
18
19
20
21

[ECF No. 83.]

GLOBAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT,
INC., d/b/a STUDENT FINANCIAL
RESOURCE CENTER, d/b/a
COLLEGE FINANCIAL ADVISORY;
and ARMOND ARIA a/k/a ARMOND
AMIR ARIA, individually, and as owner
and CEO of GLOBAL FINANCIAL
SUPPORT, INC.,

22

Defendants.
23
24

On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the

25

“Bureau”) filed a motion requesting that the Court strike Defendant Global Financial

26

Support, Inc.’s (“Global”) Answer for failure to defend and then enter default against

27

Global. (ECF No. 83.) Defendant Global has not entered an opposition. Based on the

28

applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Bureau’s motion. The Court hereby
1

3:15-cv-02440-GPC-WVG

1

STRIKES Global’s Answer and ORDERS the Clerk of Court to enter default.

2

I.

Background

3

On October 29, 2015, the Bureau filed a complaint alleging numerous

4

violations by Defendants Global and Armond Amir Avia, Global’s Chief Executive

5

Officer, of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”), including

6

through the offering, marketing, sale, and provision of student financial aid advisory

7

services. (ECF No. 1.)

8

On April 7, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings while a

9

concurrent criminal suit was pending. (ECF No. 25.) On April 26, 2016, all discovery

10

was stayed. (ECF No. 30.) Through a series of subsequent orders, the Court extended

11

the stay until May 27, 2019. (See ECF Nos. 34, 42, 46, 48, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63,

12

65, 67, 69, 71, 73.)

13

On May 2, 2019, Defendants’ then-counsel, Mr. Russel F.A. Riviere, informed

14

Defendants that the stay would be lifted. (ECF No. 75-3, Riviere Decl., at ¶ 2.)

15

Defendants told Mr. Riviere that they would be unable to pay to retain his firm’s legal

16

services following the stay and consented to his withdrawal. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 6.)

17

On June 3, 2019, Defendants’ counsel filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of

18

record for all defendants. (ECF No. 75.) On June 20, 2019, the Bureau filed a notice

19

of non-opposition to this motion. (ECF No. 78.) On July 12, 2019, the Court granted

20

the motion to withdraw. (ECF No. 79). The Court also ordered that Global secure

21

substitute counsel within thirty (30) days, that Global’s new counsel confer with the

22

Bureau as to a scheduling order within sixty (60) days, and that the Parties jointly file

23

a scheduling order, or file individual statements with the Parties’ positions on such an

24

order, within seventy-five (75) days. (Id. at 6.)

25

Since the Court issued its July 12, 2019, the Bureau has spoken to Defendant

26

Aria numerous times and informed him that they would move for default were Global

27

to remain unrepresented. (See ECF Nos. 81, 83.) On September 24, 2019, Magistrate

28

Judge Gallo also admonished Global for failing to obtain counsel:
2

3:15-cv-02440-GPC-WVG

While Defendant Aria may properly proceed pro se, as the Court
explained in its order granting the withdrawal of defense counsel,
corporate defendants such as Global may not appear pro se pursuant to
Local Rule 83.3(j). Defendant Global is warned that any continuing
failure to obtain counsel may result in sanctions.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(ECF No. 82 at 3) (emphasis in original). Global has not obtained counsel to date.
II.

Analysis
The Bureau now moves the Court to strike Global’s Answer and enter default.

(ECF No. 8.) Entering default is a two-step process. First, “[w]hen a party against
whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise

10

defend . . . the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second,

11

after default is properly entered, a party seeking relief other than a sum certain must

12

apply to the Court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).

13

Thus, to accomplish the first step here, the Bureau requests that the Court first

14

strike Global’s Answer. An answer may be stricken if defendants fail to defend

15

themselves. See Microsoft Corp. v. Marturano, No. 06-CV-1747-OWW, 2009 WL

16

1530040, at *2, 6 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2009) (striking answer against defendant who

17

persistently failed to participate in the action); Galtieri-Carlson v. Victoria M. Morton

18

Enters., 08-CV-1777-FCD, 2010 WL 3386473, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Likewise,

19

when a corporation fails to retain counsel to represent it in an action, its answer may

20

also be stricken. Employee Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993 (9th

21

Cir. 2007). Various courts have applied these rules to strike the answers of corporate

22

defendants who have failed to defend themselves, direct entry of default, and permit

23

the plaintiff to move for default judgment. See, e.g., Osgood v. Main Streat Mktg.,

24

LLC, No. 16-CV-2415-GPC, 2017 WL 3194460, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2017)

25

(citing Employee Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007));

26

Microsoft Corp. v. Marturano, No. 06-CV-1747, 2009 WL 1530040, at *2, 6 (E.D.

27

Cal. May 27, 2009); see also Rojas v. Hawgs Seafood Bar, Inc., No. C-08-03819-JF,

28

2009 WL 1255538, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2009) (“When a corporation fails to retain
3

3:15-cv-02440-GPC-WVG

1

counsel to represent it in an action, its answer may be stricken and a default judgment

2

entered against it.”); Oracle America, Inc. v. Serv. Key, LLC, No. C-12-790-SBA,

3

2013 WL 1195620, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013) (ordering that if substitute

4

counsel is not found, the court will strike answer and direct entry of default, and then

5

plaintiff may file a motion for default judgment).
Here, Defendant Global has failed to retain counsel as directed by the Court.

6
7

Global has had ample time to do so as the applicable period for securing counsel per

8

the Court’s July 12, 2019 Order expired on or around August 12, 2019. (ECF No. 79.)

9

Furthermore, both the Bureau and the Magistrate Judge have warned Defendants that

10

a failure to obtain counsel may result in default. (ECF Nos. 81, 82, 83.) Global has

11

continuously failed to defend this action and it does not appear that the corporation

12

will be doing so at this time.
Consequently, because Defendant Global has failed to obtain counsel and

13
14

defend itself in this action, the Court grants the Bureau’s motion.

15

III.

16
17
18
19

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Bureau’s motion. (ECF No.

83.) The Court thus ORDERS and DIRECTS the following:
1. That Defendant Global Financial Support, Inc’s Answer, (ECF Nos. 6, 9), be
stricken from the record;

20

2. That the Clerk of Court enter default against Global; and

21

3. That the hearing set for February 7, 2020 be vacated.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: January 30, 2020

24
25
26
27
28
4

3:15-cv-02440-GPC-WVG