Crawford v. Smith's Food and Drug Store Inc

Filing 309

ORDER denying 305 Motion for Leave to File Document; ORDER denying 306 Motion for Leave to File Document; Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/21/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case 2:12-cv-00122-GMN-GWF Document 309 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

MILTON O. CRAWFORD,
4
5
6
7
8
9

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG STORE, INC., )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00122-GMN-GWF
ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Milton O. Crawford’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motions for

10

Leave to File, (ECF Nos. 305, 306). Plaintiff’s Motions seek leave of Court to file a motion for

11

relief from the Court’s Order, (ECF No. 304), denying Plaintiff leave to file a motion for

12

clerk’s entry of default and related service documents against Defendant Kroger Co.

13

(“Kroger”).

14

Plaintiff, a vexatious litigant, requires leave of Court to file motions in this action. (See

15

Order, ECF No. 248). In the Motions at issue in the Court’s Order from which Plaintiff seeks

16

relief, Plaintiff sought leave to file a motion for clerk’s entry of default because Kroger had

17

allegedly failed to appear in this action. (Mot. Leave to File Request for Judgment 2:2–7, ECF

18

No. 298). The Court denied leave because “[n]ot only has Kroger made numerous appearances

19

in this case, but the Court also issued an Order, (ECF No. 141), granting Kroger’s Motion to

20

Dismiss, (ECF No. 71), Plaintiff’s claims against it with prejudice.” (Order 1:18–20, ECF No.

21

304). Plaintiff’s only argument regarding the Court’s Order from which he seeks relief is that it

22

“is based upon its intentional errors and misrepresentation of the facts . . . .” (Am. Mot. Leave

23

to File 8:5–9, ECF No. 306).

24
25

Upon review of the record, the Court again concludes that Plaintiff may not seek default
judgment against Kroger. Plaintiff has not made an argument that explains the Court’s errors in

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:12-cv-00122-GMN-GWF Document 309 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 2

1

its prior Order and why, absent the alleged errors, the disposition of the Court’s prior Order

2

would have been different. It seems Plaintiff is aggrieved that the Court said aside Clerk’s

3

Entry of Default against Kroger. (See generally id., ECF No. 306); (Clerk’s Entry of Default,

4

ECF No. 55). Upon motion, the Court properly set aside Clerk’s Entry of Default as to Kroger,

5

explaining that, “the Court does not find that Defendant Kroger engaged in culpable conduct

6

that led to default, that it has no meritorious defense, or that setting aside the entry of default

7

would prejudice the opposing party.” (See Order 5:14–20, ECF No. 121); see also Fed. R. Civ.

8

P. 55(c). Thereafter, the Court appropriately dismissed Kroger with prejudice. (See Order, ECF

9

No. 141). Plaintiff could not have stated a plausible claim against Kroger because Kroger was

10

not named as a respondent in Plaintiff’s EEOC complaints, and Plaintiff did not exhaust its

11

administrative remedies against Kroger. (see id. 1:16–2:14). Plaintiff may not win default

12

judgment against a party who made an appearance in the case and from whom Plaintiff could

13

not possibly recover. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)–(b). Therefore, the Order denying leave to file a

14

motion for default judgment against Kroger was sound.

15

Accordingly,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Opposition and

17
18
19
20

Relief from Judgment, (ECF No. 305), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Opposition and Relief from Judgment, (ECF No. 306), is DENIED.
21
DATED this _____ day of April, 2020.

21
22
23

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

24
25

Page 2 of 2