Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01632/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01632-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441fr Removal- Fraud

---

1 

3:15-cv-01632-BEN-NLS 

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 

ALBERT CALDERON, an individual on 

behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

TOTAL WEALTH MANAGEMENT, 

INC. et. al, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:15-cv-01632-BEN-NLS 

ORDER: 

1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT; 

2) DENYING DEFENDANT JED 

COOPER’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE 

AND DISMISS; and 

3) DENYING JOINT MOTION FOR 

STAY 

[Docket Nos. 99, 105, 117] 

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default judgment against 

Defendant Jed Cooper (Docket No. 99), Defendant Cooper’s motion to strike and dismiss 

(Docket No. 105), and Plaintiffs and Defendant Cooper’s joint motion for stay (Docket 

No. 177). The Court finds the motions suitable for determination on the papers without 

oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set for below, each 

motion is DENIED. 

Case 3:15-cv-01632-BEN-NLS Document 118 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

3:15-cv-01632-BEN-NLS 

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

A. Plaintiffs’ Request for Default Judgment 

On March 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their request for the Clerk of Court to enter 

default judgment against Defendant Jed Cooper (“Cooper”). (Docket No. 99.) On May 

4, 2017, Defendant Cooper filed a motion to strike and dismiss arguing, inter alia, that 

entry of default judgment against him would be improper because Plaintiffs failed to 

serve him with the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Docket No. 105.) 

Plaintiffs’ opposition to Cooper’s motion to dismiss does not deny that Plaintiffs failed to 

serve Cooper with the TAC. (See Docket No. 106, Pls.’ Opp’n at 6-8.) Instead, Plaintiffs 

appear to argue that because Cooper was served with but never responded to the Second 

Amended Complaint (Docket No. 1-2, “SAC”), and “no allegations changed as to those 

asserted against Jed Cooper between the Second and Third versions,” they are entitled to 

entry of default judgment for Cooper’s failure to respond to the SAC. (Pls.’ Opp’n at 10-

11.) The Court disagrees. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51

 generally requires an amended complaint be 

served on every party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1). The TAC, once filed, became the 

operative complaint, and because the Court did not order otherwise, Plaintiffs were 

required to serve it on Cooper. Id. Plaintiffs implicitly concede that they failed to serve 

the TAC on Cooper. (Pls.’ Opp’n at 6-8, 10-11.) As a result, Plaintiffs’ request for entry 

of default against Cooper for the allegations in the SAC is improper, and is therefore 

DENIED. 

B. Cooper’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss 

Cooper moves to strike Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default judgment pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(f), and to dismiss the claims against him pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 

41(b). Rule 12(b)(f) permits a court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or 

any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 

                                               

1

 Unless the stated otherwise, all future references to Rules in this Order are to the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 3:15-cv-01632-BEN-NLS Document 118 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

3:15-cv-01632-BEN-NLS 

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

(emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default is not a “pleading,” rendering 

Cooper’s motion to strike moot. Accordingly, Cooper’s motion to strike is DENIED. 

Rule 41(b) provides: “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these 

rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against 

it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Cooper admits that due to unknown reasons, he did not 

respond to the SAC and only became aware of the request for entry of default from 

another party, despite Plaintiffs’ continual prosecution of this action. (Docket No. 105, 

Def.’s Mot. at 4-6.) 

There is strong policy underlying the Rules that favors decisions on the merits. 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Additionally, 

federal district courts are directed to construe, administer and employ the Rules “to 

secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. In light of the procedural history of this case and these considerations, 

the Court finds dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against Cooper pursuant to Rule 41(b) is 

not justified. Additionally, the Court finds Cooper’s motion to dismiss for failure to state 

a claim premature because he was not properly served with the TAC. Therefore, 

Cooper’s motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. The Court shall permit 

Plaintiffs to effect proper service on Cooper, to which Cooper may file his answer or 

otherwise respond. 

C. Joint Motion for Stay 

Finally, Plaintiffs and Cooper jointly move to stay the case on the grounds that the 

remaining defendants in the action are either under receivership, have not appeared and 

are awaiting default judgment,2

 or are part of Plaintiffs’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit.3 

                                               

2

 At the time the parties’ joint motion was filed, the parties also indicated that a stay was 

warranted because Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default against Cooper and Cooper’s 

motion to strike and dismiss were still pending. However, as the Court has ruled on the 

request and motion, this ground is moot. 

3

 Case No. 17-55217. 

Case 3:15-cv-01632-BEN-NLS Document 118 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

3:15-cv-01632-BEN-NLS 

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

(Docket No. 117.) The Court disagrees that a stay is warranted or necessary. Based on 

the Court’s rulings in this Order regarding Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default 

judgment and Cooper’s motion to strike and dismiss, Plaintiffs’ action may proceed as to 

their claims against Cooper. The parties have not demonstrated that these claims are so 

inextricably tied to the Defendants in Plaintiffs’ appeal to justify any further delay in this 

case. Therefore, the parties’ joint motion for stay is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

In sum, for all of the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for entry of 

default judgment against Defendant Cooper, Defendant Cooper’s motion to strike, and 

the parties’ joint motion for stay are DENIED. Cooper’s motion to dismiss is DENIED 

without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall serve Cooper with a copy of the TAC in accordance 

with the Rules within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. Cooper shall file his 

answer or otherwise respond to the TAC within twenty-one (21) days of its service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 10, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-01632-BEN-NLS Document 118 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4