McGee v. Donahoe
Filing
251
ORDER Denying Plaintiff Lola McGee's 215 Motion for Entry of Clerk's Default and 216 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/31/2019.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - BEL)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
LOLA MCGEE,
8
9
10
11
12
Case No. 2:13-cv-01426-RFB-VCF
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, United States Postal
Service Postmaster General,
Defendant.
13
14
Before the Court are two contested motions: Plaintiff Lola McGee’s Motion for Entry of
15
Clerk’s Default (ECF No. 215) and Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 216). The Court
16
previously dismissed Plaintiff’s earlier motions for the same relief in its July 18, 2018 Order. ECF
17
No. 213 (denying ECF Nos. 193, 194).
18
participated in the litigation and the strong policy of deciding cases on their merits” resulted in
19
dismissal of Plaintiff’s previous motions.
The Court found that “Defendants have actively
20
The granting of a default judgment is a two-step process directed by Federal Rule of Civil
21
Procedure (“Rule”) 55. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). The first step is
22
an entry of clerk's default based on a showing, by affidavit or otherwise, that the party against
23
whom the judgment is sought “has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The
24
second step is default judgment under Rule 55(b), a decision which lies within the discretion of
25
the Court. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Factors which a court, in its
26
discretion, may consider in deciding whether to grant a default judgment include: (1) the
27
possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of the substantive claims, (3) the sufficiency
28
of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, (5) the possibility of a dispute of material fact,
1
(6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the Federal Rules' strong policy in
2
favor of deciding cases on the merits. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72.
3
The Court finds that default judgment is not warranted. As stated in the Court’s July 18,
4
2018 Order, Defendants have appeared in this matter and have continuously defended. See docket
5
generally. Indeed, the docket in this matter amassed over two hundred entries at the time Plaintiff
6
filed the pending motions. In conjunction with the continual defense, the Court finds that this
7
matter should be decided on its merits. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s two motions.
8
To be sure, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s July 18, 2018
9
Order by resubmitting motions for entry of clerk’s default and for default judgment, the Court
10
denies the motions. “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
11
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
12
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc.
13
v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation and citation
14
omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
15
for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id.
16
Plaintiff has not presented highly unusual circumstances nor new evidence, clear error, or a change
17
in controlling law. The Court denies the motions to the extent Plaintiff submitted them as to
18
request reconsideration of the July 18, 2018 Order.
19
20
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Lola McGee’s Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default (ECF
No. 215) and Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 216) are DENIED.
21
22
DATED: March 31, 2019.
23
__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?