Perez v. Sandpoint Gas N Go & Lube Center, Inc. et al

Filing 83

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1. Defendants Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer Dkt. 73 ) is DENIED. 2. Defendants Motion to Set Aside Default (Dkt. 74 ) is DENIED. 3. Defendants Request for District Court to Consider or Grant Defendants Motion to Set Aside Default (Dkt. 80 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

THOMAS E PEREZ, SECRETARY OF
LABOR, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00357-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
SANDPOINT GAS N GO & LUBE
CENTER, INC., an Idaho corporation,
and SYDNEY M. OSKOUI,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer
Dkt. 73), Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default (Dkt. 74), and Defendants’ Request
for District Court to Consider or Grant Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default (Dkt.
80). For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motions.
ANALYSIS
The Secretary of Labor filed its Complaint on August 27, 2014. Responsive
pleadings were due September 24, 2014. Defendants failed to timely respond. Instead,
Defendants filed several frivolous pleadings, tried to unilaterally set a hearing on the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Court’s calendar, attempted to be represented by a non-lawyer, and essentially disobeyed
the Court’s rulings and attempts to give Defendants their day in court. Eventually, after
determining that neither Defendant had timely responded to the Complaint, the Court
ordered the Clerk of the Court to enter default against both Defendants. The Clerk
entered default on December 8, 2014. Defendant Oskoui tried to appeal the default but
the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte on January 14, 2015. The Ninth Circuit
mandate returning the case to this Court was issued on March 16, 2015.
On July 13, 2015, the Secretary of Labor filed a motion for default judgment and
requested a hearing on punitive damages. The Court set a hearing for September 24,
2015. Defendants did not appear at the hearing, and the Court entered a final judgment
that included $100,000 in punitive damages, $979.25 in lost wages and prejudgment
interest, and injunctive relief. Defendants filed a notice of appeal on October 6, 2015. On
April 25, 2016 the Ninth Circuit filed an Order in this case indicating that briefing on the
appeal was complete, but the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the appeal.
ANALYSIS
Defendants’ Notice of Appeal of this Court’s final judgment deprives this Court of
jurisdiction to hear the pending motions. A default judgment is a final appealable order.
Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009). “The effective
filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction from the district court to the court of
appeals with respect to all matters involved in the appeal.” Masalosalo by Masalosalo v.
Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983) (Internal citations omitted). And
this Court cannot consider a motion to vacate judgment. Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

F.3d 661, 685 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Defendants initial motion to set aside default
and request for extension of time to answer the Complaint shall be denied.
A second motion to set aside default will also be denied. After the Secretary of
Labor opposed the first two motions, Defendants filed another motion to set aside the
default. This time, Defendants cited Rule 62.1, which states that if a timely motion is
made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because an appeal is pending, the
court may (1) defer considering the motion, (2) deny the motion, or (3) state either that it
would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion
raises a substantial issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1.
Here, the Court will deny the motion. A district court has discretion to deny a rule
60(b) motion to vacate a default judgment if (1) the plaintiff would be prejudiced by
granting it, (2) the defendant has no meritorious defense, or (3) the defendant’s culpable
conduct led to the default. Brandt v. American Bankers ins. Co. of Florida, 653 F.3d
1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). Only a finding of a defendant’s culpable conduct is necessary
to deny the motion. Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.
1985).
Defendants engaged in culpable conduct to avoid litigation of the merits of this
matter for more than a year. As noted above, Defendants filed several frivolous
pleadings, tried to unilaterally set a hearing on the Court’s calendar, attempted to be
represented by a non-lawyer, and disobeyed the Court’s rulings. Then, when the Court
scheduled a hearing, Defendants failed to show. Accordingly, the Court will deny the
motion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

ORDER
1. Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer Dkt. 73) is
DENIED.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default (Dkt. 74) is DENIED.
3. Defendants’ Request for District Court to Consider or Grant Defendants’
Motion to Set Aside Default (Dkt. 80) is DENIED.

DATED: December 8, 2016
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4