Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LaRELL FRANKLIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLSTATE CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-06-1909 MMC

ORDER RE: SCHWARTZ DEFENDANTS’

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF

DEFAULT

The Court is in receipt of a document, together with attached exhibits, filed March

28, 2008 by defendants Scott D. Schwartz and Rust, Armenis & Schwartz (“Schwartz

Defendants”) and titled “Response to Plaintiffs’ Application for Entry of Default of Defendant

Roy GranIund and for Court Judgment,” by which said moving parties seek an order setting

aside the Clerk’s default entered March 17, 2008 against defendant Roy Granlund

(“Granlund”) and to oppose entry of default judgment thereon.

To the extent the Schwartz Defendants seek to set aside the default entered by the

Clerk against Granlund, the instant filing is insufficient for such purpose; rather, defendants

must file a properly noticed motion seeking such relief. See Civil L.R. 7-1 (providing

manner in which request for relief may be brought); Civil L.R. 7-2(a) (providing “motions

must be filed, served and noticed . . . for hearing not less than 35 days after service of the

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 203 Filed 04/03/08 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

1

 Although plaintiffs did include, in the title of their application for entry of default, the

words “and for Court Judgment,” a review of the application indicates the only relief sought

by such filing was entry of default by the Clerk pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. (See, e.g., Pls.’ App. for Entry of Clerk’s Default of Roy Granlund and

for Court Judgment at 3:9-22.)

2

motion”). Further, in any such motion, the Schwartz Defendants must provide, in addition

to any other argument presented therein, legal authority supporting their standing to raise

such objection on behalf of Granlund. 

To the extent the Schwartz Defendants seek to oppose entry of default judgment

against Granlund, such opposition is premature, for the reason that no motion for entry of

default judgment against Granlund is pending before the Court.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 203 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2