Ellis v. Kaiser Permanente et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying Ellis' pending motions (Docket nos. 31, 33, 35, and 37), and denying defendants' request for sanctions. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 7/20/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHA’LENA ELLIZABETHANN ELLIS,

12

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00195-LAB-KSC

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER DENYING ELLIS’ PENDING
MOTIONS AND DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

13
14

KAISER PERMANENTE, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Sha'lena Ellizabethann Ellis contends that the defendants were seven days late in

18

filing their Answer. (See Docket nos. 21 and 28.) So she filed several motions requesting

19

that the Court reject the Answer and enter default in her favor. (Docket nos. 31, 33, 35, and

20

37.)

21
22
23
24
25
26

A court has discretion in granting default judgment and should consider the following
factors in making its decision:
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's
substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money
at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts;
(6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy
underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the
merits.

27

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir.1986). These factors don’t favor entry of

28

default judgment. Most importantly, Ellis hasn’t shown that the alleged seven day delay
-1-

3:16-cv-00195

1

caused her prejudice, and hasn’t provided facts to overcome the strong policy favoring

2

decisions on the merits.

3

Ellis’ pending motions (Docket nos. 31, 33, 35, and 37) are DENIED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: July 20, 2016

6
7

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

3:16-cv-00195