Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02538/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02538-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

Case No. 15-cv-02538-NC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRY J. WILLIBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEARST CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-02538-NC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

RECONSIDER VACATING 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTION; 

ORDERING SERVICE; AND 

CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

On September 10, 2015, plaintiff Harry J. Williby moved for entry of default

against defendants Hearst Corporation and Ernesto Mourelo, and moved for default 

judgment on September 22, 2015. Dkt. No. 19. On September 25, 2015, defendants then 

specially appeared through counsel Thomas Burke to ask that the default judgment be set 

aside. Dkt. No. 24. On September 29, the Court granted defendants’ request, and Williby 

now asks for reconsideration arguing that he was never served with defendants’ response 

and was not given an opportunity to reply. Dkt. Nos 27, 28. 

I. DEFAULT JUDGMENT

“Our starting point is the general rule that default judgments are ordinarily 

disfavored. Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). In deciding whether to grant default 

judgment, the Court considers the following factors: (1) the merits of the plaintiff’s 

substantive claim; (2) the sufficiency of the complaint; (3) the sum of money at stake in the 

Case 5:15-cv-02538-EJD Document 31 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 3
Case No.15-cv-02538-NC 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

action; (4) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (5) the possibility of a dispute 

concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the 

strong policy favoring decisions on the merits. Id. at 1471-72. 

The Court previously determined that default judgment was not proper because 

defendants appeared in the case in a timely manner. Additionally, prior to Williby’s 

motion for default judgment, defendants notified the Court and Williby that they did not 

believe they had been properly served. Defendants maintained that position in asking the 

Court to set aside the motion for default judgment. Therefore, the Court finds that the Eitel

factors counsel against entering default judgment, as the default appears to be based on 

excusable neglect, there is a possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, and policy 

favors a decision on the merits. Thus, the Court DENIES Williby’s request to reconsider 

vacating the motion for default judgment.

II. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

A case management conference is scheduled in this case for October 28, 2015. 

Because no case management statement has been filed, and Williby requests an extension 

of time, the Court moves the case management conference to November 18, 2015, and the 

parties may participate by phone. A case management statement is due November 13, 

2015.

III. ORDER OF SERVICE

Defendants maintain that they have not been properly served, so the Court 

ORDERS the clerk of the court to mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of 

Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the 

complaint and all attachments thereto, a magistrate judge consent form, and a copy of this 

order to defendants’ counsel, Thomas Burke. 

Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and 

complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if defendants, after being notified of this action and asked 

by the court, on behalf of plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fails to do so, they 

Case 5:15-cv-02538-EJD Document 31 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 3
Case No.15-cv-02538-NC 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their 

failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as 

if defendants had been served on the date that the waiver is filed, and defendants will not 

be required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the 

request for waiver was sent. Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the 

bottom of the waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with 

regard to waiver of service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in 

the notice but before defendants have been personally served, the answer shall be due sixty 

(60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from 

the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later.

All parties are reminded that they must either consent to or decline the jurisdiction 

of a U.S. magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02538-EJD Document 31 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 3