Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00817/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00817-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEWPARK MALL LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CRGE NEWPARK MALL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00817-MEJ 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE 

DEFAULT

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Plaintiff NewPark Mall filed this breach of contract case against Defendants CRGE 

NewPark Mall and Boomtown Entertainment on February 23, 2015. Less than six weeks later, 

Plaintiff requested that the Clerk of Court enter default against both Defendants for failure to 

timely respond. Dkt. No. 11. The Clerk entered default on April 7, 2015, after which Plaintiff 

filed a Motion for Default Judgment by the Clerk, which remains pending. Dkt. Nos. 12, 13. 

Defendants have now filed a Motion to Set Aside Default. Dkt. No. 14. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) provides that a court “may set aside an entry of 

default for good cause.” The district court has discretion to determine whether a party 

demonstrates “good cause.” Madsen v. Bumb, 419 F.2d 4, 6 (9th Cir. 1969). The court’s 

discretion is particularly broad where a party seeks to set aside an entry of default rather than a 

default judgment. Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1986). In 

evaluating whether a party has demonstrated good cause, a district court may consider the 

following factors: (1) whether the defendant’s culpable conduct led to the default; (2) whether the 

defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) whether setting aside the default would prejudice the 

plaintiff. TCI Grp. Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001). Whenever 

“timely relief is sought . . . and the movant has a meritorious defense,” a court must resolve any 

Case 4:15-cv-00817-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

doubt in favor of setting aside the default. Mendoza, 783 F.2d at 945-46. The party seeking to 

vacate the entry of default bears the burden of demonstrating that these factors favor doing so. 

TCI, 244 F.3d at 696.

As it is preferable to focus on the merits of a case, the Court hereby VACATES the 

briefing deadlines and June 25, 2015 hearing for Defendants’ motion. The Court ORDERS the 

parties to meet and confer to determine whether they can reach an agreement to set aside default. 

Given that this case is in the early stages of litigation and a cursory review of Defendants’ motion 

shows that they can likely establish good cause to set aside default, the Court advises Plaintiff that 

it is likely to grant Defendants’ motion. The parties shall meet and confer by May 8, 2015, and 

thereafter file either a stipulation to set aside default or a request to place Defendants’ motion back 

on calendar by May 13, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00817-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2