Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02580/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02580-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

3:18-cv-02580-CAB-(WVG)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA BROOKE, a married woman 

dealing with her sole and separate claim,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARNEY HOSPITALITY, LP, a 

California limited partnership doing 

business as Best Western Plus Hacienda 

Hotel Old Town,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02580-CAB-(WVG)

ORDER ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE 

DEFAULT

[Doc. No. 6]

On November 10, 2018, Plaintiff Theresa Brooke, filed a verified complaint alleging 

violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, 

et seq., the California Civil Rights Act (“UNRUH”), California Civil Code sections 51, 52, 

and the California Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”), California Civil Code sections 54-54.3. 

[Doc. No. 1.] The summons was issued and served on November 15, 2018. [Doc. Nos. 2, 

3.]

On December 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default against 

Defendant [Doc. No. 4] and on December 10, 2018, the Clerk entered the Default [Doc. 

No. 5]. On December 17, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Entry of 

Case 3:18-cv-02580-CAB-WVG Document 7 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-02580-CAB-(WVG)

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

Default with a noticed hearing date of January 21, 2019. [Doc. No. 6.] As of the date of 

this order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

A court may set aside a default for good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Factors 

to consider include whether a defendant engaged in culpable conduct, whether defendant 

has a meritorious defense, and whether setting aside default will prejudice plaintiff. See 

Franchise Holding, II, LLC v. Huntington Rests. Grp., Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 

2004).

Here, the Court has reviewed the motion which states that Defendant’s agent for 

service of process, Mr. Harkins, was not the individual served with a copy of the complaint 

and Plaintiff’s request for entry of default was prematurely filed. [Doc. No. 6-1 at 4-5.] In 

consideration of the circumstances surrounding the serving of the complaint, the 

miscalculation surrounding when Defendant’s answer was due, and in light of the fact that 

Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, the Court concludes that good cause has been shown 

and that setting aside the default will not prejudice plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court 

GRANTS the motion. [Doc. No. 6.]

The entry of default against Defendant is vacated. [Doc. No. 5]. Defendant shall 

answer or otherwise respond to the complaint no later than February 20, 2019.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2019

 

1 No filings with the Court courtesy, or ortherwise, should have “blue backs.”

Case 3:18-cv-02580-CAB-WVG Document 7 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2