Sweeney v. Carringer

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order setting aside Defendants’ defaults and denied their request for certification for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to enlarge briefing deadlines, setting August 25, 2025, as the response deadline for specified motions and September 8, 2025, for replies.

Holdings

1. A district court may set aside a clerk's entry of default sua sponte when good cause exists; no motion is required.
2. Plaintiffs did not demonstrate any ground warranting leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9, so the motion for reconsideration was denied.
3. Certification for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) was denied.
4. The request for an extension was denied as moot as to the jurisdictional order to show cause, but granted as to the other specified motions, with responses due August 25, 2025 and replies due September 8, 2025.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the standard for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9.
2. Whether a district court may set aside a clerk's entry of default sua sponte for good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c).
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to certification for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
4. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to an enlargement of time to respond to the specified motions and order to show cause.

Disposition

other