Avendano et al v. Security Consultants Group, Inc. et al

Filing 72

ORDER DENYING 63 Motion for Entry of Clerks Default; and, GRANTING granting 64 Motion for Leave to File Answer, Instanter. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 4/1/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ISAAC AVENDANO and ROLAND DUENAS, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SECURITY CONSULTANTS GROUP, INC., )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )

3:13-cv-00168-HDM-VPC
ORDER

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action on April 3,

16

2013, and defendants United Government Security Officers of America

17

and United Government Security Officers of America, Local 283

18

(“Union defendants”) filed their answer on July 29, 2013.

19

January 27, 2014, the court granted the motion for more definite

20

statement filed by defendants Security Consultants Group, Inc.,

21

Paragon Systems, Inc., and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

22

and directed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or before

23

February 14, 2014.

24

On

On February 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their first amended

25

complaint.

26

complaint by the Union defendants, plaintiff moved for entry of

27

clerk’s default (#63).

28

filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file their

On March 11, 2014, absent any answer to the amended

On March 12, 2014, the Union defendants

1

1

answer and for leave to file their answer (#64).

2

been opposed by plaintiffs (#67).

3

replied (#70).

4

The motion has

The Union defendants have

Defaults are generally disfavored, and cases “should, whenever

5

possible, be decided on the merits.”

6

Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001).

7

defendants have appeared in and are actively litigating this

8

action, default is not proper at this time.

9

plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default (#63) is DENIED.

10

TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v.
Because the Union

Accordingly, the

The court further finds good cause to grant the Union

11

defendants leave to file their untimely answer to the amended

12

complaint, particularly given that the Union defendants had already

13

answered the plaintiff’s original complaint, and the amended

14

complaint was not filed in response to any motion made by the Union

15

defendants.

16

time and for leave to file an answer, instanter (#64) is therefore

17

GRANTED.

The Union defendants’ motion for an enlargement of

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: This 1st day of April, 2014.

20
21

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2