Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order to show cause after the Clerk entered default against Webcollex, LLC and the plaintiff took no further action. The court ordered the plaintiff to explain by April 2, 2025, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, while stating that filing a motion for default judgment would discharge the order.
Holdings
- Entry of default is not entry of default judgment and does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment.
- The district court exercises sound discretion in deciding whether to grant default judgment and considers the seven Eitel factors.
- After entry of default, well-pleaded factual allegations in the operative complaint are generally taken as true, except allegations concerning damages; facts not pleaded and legally insufficient claims are not established by default.
Questions Presented
- Whether entry of default by the Clerk automatically entitles plaintiff to a default judgment.
- What plaintiff must do to obtain default judgment after entry of default.
- Whether plaintiff's failure to pursue default judgment warranted an order to show cause for failure to prosecute.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002)(followed)
- Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)(followed)
- Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…