Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for default judgment because defendants timely filed a responsive pleading and otherwise defended the action. The court also orders the Clerk to assign a district judge and explains the procedure and deadline for objections to the findings and recommendations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants' timely answer and continued defense of the action precluded entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
- Whether defendants had shown good cause for a thirty-day extension of the dispositive-motion deadline.
Holdings
- Default judgment should be denied because defendants timely filed a responsive pleading and had not failed to plead or otherwise defend the action.
- The court found good cause to extend the dispositive-motion deadline by thirty days based on counsel's workload and the substantial record underlying the action.
Key quotations
“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” (at 2)
Factual background
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed a second amended complaint against defendants Keursten and Muhammad. Defendants filed a timely answer on March 25, 2024. After the court extended the dispositive-motion deadline for good cause, plaintiff argued that the extension was prejudicial because of his age and long COVID-19 illness and sought default judgment in the same filing.
Procedural history
The court directed service of plaintiff's second amended complaint on defendants Keursten and Muhammad. Defendants timely answered, after which the court entered a discovery and scheduling order. The court granted defendants a thirty-day extension of the dispositive-motion deadline for good cause, and plaintiff then opposed the extension and moved for default judgment.