Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01880/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01880-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELEN L. HORVATH, dba HW ASSOC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-cv-1880 – IEG (BLM)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

ANTHONY TONEY’S MOTION

TO VACATE DEFAULT

JUDGMENT 

[Doc. No. 34]

vs.

ANTHONY TONEY, dba UPTOP GROUP

LLC, CAVA CUP SOCCER

TOURNAMENT, AMERICAS

BASKETBALL INTERNATIONAL, and dba

ABI SLAM FOUNDATION,

Defendant.

Before the Court is pro se Defendant Anthony Toney’s motion to vacate, on grounds of

excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), the default judgment entered on April 24, 2012

in favor of pro se Plaintiff Helen Horvath. [See Doc. No. 34.] For the reasons below, the Court

hereby DENIES Defendant Toney’s motion to vacate.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action pro se on August 19, 2011, filing a single-paragraph

complaint asserting claims stemming from Defendant Toney’s alleged breach of a contract for

organizing an international soccer tournament. [Doc. No. 1.] After granting leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, the Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to

allege subject matter jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 4.] On October 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended

complaint (“FAC”), which the Court sua sponte screened, found adequately alleged diversity

jurisdiction, and ordered served. [Doc. No. 13.] 

- 1 - 11cv1880

Case 3:11-cv-01880-IEG-BLM Document 53 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 4
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

The docket reflects Plaintiff served each of the Defendants with the FAC at Anthony

Toney’s address of record, 3327 15th Court North, Birmingham, Alabama, 35234. [See Doc. Nos.

15-17.] Defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond within the time period set forth in the

Federal Rules and the Clerk of the Court therefore entered default upon Plaintiff’s request on

January 20, 2012. [Doc. No. 19.] 

Plaintiff first moved for entry of default judgment on February 8, 2012, certifying service

to Defendant Toney at his address of record. [See Doc. No. 21 at 9.] Defendant Toney filed a

response, implicitly acknowledging receipt via his address of record, on February 10, 2012. [See

Doc. No. 22.] On February 15, 2012, the Court denied this first motion without prejudice for lack

of sufficient evidence. [Doc. No. 23.] On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second motion for

entry of default judgment with attached documentary evidence supporting her claims for relief and

damages, and again certifying service to Defendant Toney’s address of record. [Doc. No. 24] 

No opposition was filed, and the Court took the motion under submission. [See Doc. No. 25.] On

April 24, 2012, the Court granted default judgment as to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim in the

amount of $211,415.15 plus interest.1

 [Doc. No. 26.]

Over three months later, on August 8, 2012, Defendant Toney filed the present motion to

vacate the default judgment. [See Doc. No. 34.] Because Defendant Toney failed to obtain a

hearing date from chambers prior to filing, the Court issued an order on October 22, 2012 setting a

briefing schedule and a hearing on December 3, 2012. [Doc. No. 35.] Plaintiff filed a motion “to

set aside the hearing and request proof of identity” on November 1, 2012, and an opposition to

Defendant Toney’s motion to vacate on November 14, 2012. [Doc. Nos. 37, 42.] Defendant

Toney filed a motion to continue the hearing, which the Court denied on November 27, 2012. [See

Doc. No. 39]. On December 3, 2012, the Court heard oral argument from Plaintiff, appearing in

person, and Defendant Toney, appearing telephonically. [Doc. No. 49.] During the hearing,

Defendant Toney confirmed his address of record remains accurate. [Id.]

1 The Court denied default judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1343

because the statute does not provide for private civil remedies, and as to Plaintiff’s claims under 29

C.F.R. § 1604.11 for failure to allege a sufficient number of employees to bring her claims within the

scope of the Title VII. [Id.] 

- 2 - 11cv1880

Case 3:11-cv-01880-IEG-BLM Document 53 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 4
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

DISCUSSION

“Motions to vacate a default judgment . . . are cognizable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” 

TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695 (9th Cir. 2001). “Rule 60(b)(1) grants

district courts discretion to relieve a party from a judgment or order for reason of ‘mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,’ provided that the party moves for such relief not

more than a year after the judgment was entered.” Id. But a “mere general denial without facts to

support it is not enough to justify vacating a default or default judgment.” Franchise Holding II,

LLC v. Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Where, as here, “a defendant seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1) based upon ‘excusable

neglect,’ the court applies [] three factors . . . which courts consistently refer to as the ‘Falk

factors:’

(1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced, (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious

defense, and (3) whether culpable conduct of the defendant led to the default.

Brandt v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 653 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Falk

v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984)). “The defaulting party bears the burden of showing

that the factors favor setting aside the default.” Lopez v. Whirlpool, 2012 WL 5818266, at *1

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (citing Franchise Holding, 375 F.3d at 926).

Defendant Toney makes no showing in regard to any of these factors; instead, he

incredulously asserts that he never received notice of Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. 

[See, e.g., Doc. No. 34 at 2 “Defendant was never given notice . . .”.] But the docket clearly

reflects that Plaintiff’s motion was mailed to Defendant Toney’s address of record. [Doc. No. 24

at 18.] Moreover, the docket is replete with certificates of service to the same address for filings

to which Defendant Toney responded and thus that corroborate the accuracy and effectiveness of

his address of record. [See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 22, 34, 39] Further, during the December 3, 2012,

hearing, Defendant Toney conceded the accuracy of that very address. [Doc. No. 49.] Yet, he

provided no explanation whatsoever as to how or why mail sent to that address would not reach

him. See Dennison v. Ryan, 2012 WL 4006710, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 7, 2012) (“Because

Defendant [] has not offered a credible, good faith explanation for her failure to respond,” motion

to vacate denied.). To the contrary, Defendant’s own participation in this case, responding to

- 3 - 11cv1880

Case 3:11-cv-01880-IEG-BLM Document 53 Filed 12/13/12 Page 3 of 4
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

several pleadings, motions, and orders all mailed to the very same address as Plaintiff’s motion for

default judgment, belies any defect in service to his address of record. See RPA Intern. Pty Ltd. v.

Compact Intl Inc., 2011 WL 4433627, at *8 (S.D. Cal. September 21, 2011) (“the actual notice of

this action and early participation in this case by Defendants . . . weighs against a finding of

excusable neglect.”). Thus, because Defendant Toney makes no showing in favor of, and the

record plainly weighs against, vacating the default judgment entered in this case is unwarranted.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, Defendant Toney’s motion to vacate is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 13, 2012 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv1880

Case 3:11-cv-01880-IEG-BLM Document 53 Filed 12/13/12 Page 4 of 4