Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00930/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00930-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ESCOBEDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGINO FLORES GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00930-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

A MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

THIRTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on August 9, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) On October 

29, 2024, Plaintiff requested entry of default as to all defendants. (ECF No. 8.) On October 30, 

2024, the Clerk of the Court entered default against all Defendants: (1) Regino Flores Garcia, 

dba Senor Pancho’s; (2) Yolanda Mancillas Garcia, dba Senor Pancho’s; and (3) Lemoore 

Capital, L.P. (ECF No. 11.)

The Court notes that after the clerk’s entry of default of all defendants, Defendants 

Regino Flores Garcia and Yolanda Mancillas Garcia filed an answer on October 30, 2024. (ECF 

No. 12.) However, neither a stipulation nor motion to set aside the entry of default has been filed 

in this action.1

1 Once default has been entered by the Clerk, “[t]he court may set aside an entry of default for good cause.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 55(c). In determining whether good cause exists, the court considers “(1) whether the party seeking to set 

aside the default engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) whether it had no meritorious defense; or 

(3) whether reopening the default judgment would prejudice the other party.” United States v. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 

1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Restaurants Grp., Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925-26 

(9th Cir. 2004)).

Case 1:24-cv-00930-SAB Document 14 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 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

2

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55, obtaining a default 

judgment is a two-step process. Yue v. Storage Technology Corp., No. 3:07-cv-05850, 2008 WL 

361142, *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2008). Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against 

whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as 

provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by 

affidavit or otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After entry of default, the plaintiff can seek entry 

of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) and (2). “Default judgments are generally 

disfavored, and whenever it is reasonably possible, cases should be decided upon their merits.” 

In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, (9th Cir. 1991) (internal punctuation and citations omitted).

As default has been entered against all Defendants in this matter, and no stipulation nor 

motion to set aside such default has been filed, the Court shall set a deadline for Plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment to be filed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty-five (35) days from the date 

of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a motion for default judgment. Plaintiff is advised that 

the failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-00930-SAB Document 14 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 2