Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00876/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00876-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

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

E. & J. GALLO WINERY, a

California corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

BLACKWOOD CANYON VINTNERS,

 Defendant.

1:05-CV-0876 OWW LJO

ORDER GRANTING ENTRY OF

DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT

BLACKWOOD CANYON VINTNERS 

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Before the court is the order to show cause previously

issued by the court to Defendant Blackwood County Vintners

(“BCV”). Defendant has not responded. 

On February 21, 2006, the court ordered Defendant Blackwood

County Vintners (“BCV”) and attorney David M. Wolf (“Wolf”) to

show cause why BCV’s pending motions should not be stricken and

its default entered in this action for failure to respond to

Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 28, Order to Show Cause. Wolf filed a

Declaration in Opposition on March 1, 2006. Doc. 30, Wolf Decl. 

BCV has filed no response.

II. BACKGROUND

Case 1:05-cv-00876-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 7
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

On October 7, 2005, Wolf moved to withdraw as attorney for

BCV. Doc. 16, Mot. to Withdraw. The motion was unopposed. Doc.

19, Statement of Non-Opp. The court conditionally granted the

motion by Order issued on February 1, 2006. Doc. 27, Order. The

Order also set a scheduling conference for February 17, 2006. 

Id. 

Neither BCV nor Wolf appeared at the scheduling conference. 

Doc. 28, Order to Show Cause, 1. The Court issued an Order to

show cause on February 21, 2006 why BCV should not be sanctioned

for failure to obey a court order. Id. 

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

“All federal courts are vested with inherent powers enabling

them to manage their cases and courtrooms effectively and to

ensure obedience to their orders.” Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v.

United States, 376 F.3d 960, 965 (9 Cir. 2004). A court may th

dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to

obey a court order or local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

Cir.1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1440-41 (9th Cir.1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with

local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th

Cir.1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order);

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.1986)

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

local rules).

Case 1:05-cv-00876-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

Local Rule 83-183(b) provides that “[a] corporation or other

entity may appear only by an attorney.” 

V. ANALYSIS

1. Whether Wolf was Counsel for BCV at the Time of the

Scheduling Conference

David M. Wolf is former counsel for BCV. Besides setting

the scheduling conference for February 17, the February 1, 2006,

Order granted Wolf’s motion to withdraw as BCV’s counsel; but,

under Local Rule 83-183(a), the Order provided that Wolf would be

re-instated if: (1) the court later determines that BCV is a

corporation; (2) when the court makes this determination, BCV is

without counsel; and (3) the court provides Wolf with notice of

(1) and (2). Doc. 27, Order, 3.

Wolf states that he did not appear at the scheduling

conference because he thought, based on the February 1 Order,

that his duties in this litigation were concluded. Doc. 30, Wolf

Decl., ¶ 2. BCV is a limited partnership, not a corporation. 

Id., ¶ 5. 

The first condition to Wolf’s re-instatement as counsel for

BCV has not been fulfilled. Wolf was not counsel for BCV when

the scheduling conference was conducted. 

2. Whether BCV is an “Entity” for Purposes of Local Rule 83-

183(a).

Local Rule 83-183(a) provides that “[a] corporation or other

entity may appear only by an attorney.” The court’s February 21

Order stated that “no party has provided authority whether a

Washington limited partnership meets the definition of ‘entity’

as used in the Local Rules of Court.” Doc. 28, Order to Show

Case 1:05-cv-00876-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 03/24/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Cause, 2. 

Washington statute defines a limited partnership as an

entity. See RCWA § 7.60.005(2), (8); § 11.104A.100(a) and

Uniform Law Comment, 2006 Electronic Update (“[t]he reference to

partnerships in Section 401(a) is intended to include . . .

limited partnership”); § 23B.11.090(2); § 30.22.040(3). See also

Curley Elec., Inc. v. Bills, 121 P.3d 106, 108 (Wash.App. 2005)

(“[a] partnership is an entity distinct from its partners”); 1B

Wash. Prac., Methods of Practice § 65.2 (4th ed.) (limited

partnership a “business entity,” to the same extent as a

partnership). 

BCV is an “entity” for the purposes of Local Rule 83-183(b). 

BCV must appear by counsel in this litigation.

The February 1, 2006, Order granting Wolf’s motion to

withdraw as counsel for BCV specifically found that BCV’s conduct

had made it unreasonably difficult for Wolf to effectively carry

out his representation of BCV. Doc. 27, Order, 2. BCV has

failed to retain replacement counsel to represent it in this

action, as required by Local Rule 83-183(a). 

3. Entry of Default

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a

party to comply with these local rules . . . may be grounds for

the imposition by the [c]ourt of any and all sanctions . . .

within the inherent power of the [c]ourt.” The court has

inherent power to control its docket, including the power to

enter default. Thompson v. Housing Authority of City of Los

Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9 Cir. 1986). th

In Ringgold Corp. v. Worrall, 880 F.2d 1138 (9 Cir. 1989), th

Case 1:05-cv-00876-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 03/24/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

defendant’s counsel withdrew because of its failure to cooperate. 

Thereafter, defendant failed to attend pre-trial conferences or

participate in the litigation, although it had adequate notice. 

It was held that the court had power to order entry of a default

judgment. 

Here, BCV has failed to retain replacement counsel, despite

the requirement of Local Rule 83-183(a) that it do so. BCV

failed to appear for a scheduling conference. BCV has provided

no explanation for either of these failures. 

Factors to be considered in determining whether to enter a

default or dismissal under the court’s inherent power include:

(1) the efficacy of lesser sanctions; (2) whether the misconduct

was intentional; (3) whether the person responsible was the

client or the attorney; (4) whether the misconduct relates to the

matter in controversy; (5) any prejudice to the party seeking

sanctions; (6) the public interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation; (7) the public policy favoring disposition of cases

on their merits; and (8) any “extraordinary circumstances.” See

United States v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 67 F.3d 242, 247 (9 Cir. th

1995).

BCV has notice of this proceeding. See Doc. 28, Order to

Show Cause, 2 (“[t]he Order to Show Cause shall be heard on March

20, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3"). The court caused the

Order to be mailed to BCV on February 21, 2006. 

BCV, as a business entity under Local Rule 83-183(a), cannot

defend this action unless it is represented by counsel. Lesser

sanctions than default have been attempted. BCV has refused to

respond or appear. There appears to be no other way to compel

Case 1:05-cv-00876-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 03/24/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

compliance with the court’s orders. The first factor strongly

favors the entry of default against BCV.

The second factor also favors default. BCV first failed to

cooperate with Wolf in its defense, to provide information to

support BCV’s motion challenging personal jurisdiction, a

waivable defense, necessitating Wolf’s withdrawal as counsel. 

Then it failed to retain replacement counsel. BCV was notified

of the scheduling conference, and nonetheless failed to appear. 

Thereafter, BCV failed to respond to or appear at the order to

show cause hearing. BCV’s conduct is intentional and in wilful

disregard of the court’s orders. 

BCV must be held responsible for its misconduct and refusal

to respond to the court’s orders. BCV’s misconduct relates to

the scheduled Order to Show Cause. This factor weighs in favor

of sanctions. 

Gallo is prejudiced by BCV’s failure to respond as BCV has

impeded the case from proceeding. 

The public interest favoring the expeditious resolution of

disputes favors default. BCV cannot defend without legal

representation, under the local rules. It has failed to respond

to defend the action and to court orders. 

Although the public policy favoring adjudication of disputes

on their merits disfavors the entry of default, this is not a

controlling factor where other factors strongly favor the

sanction of default. See Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162,

1167 (9 Cir. 1994). th

BCV has not provided “extraordinary circumstances” nor any

explanation why it failed to replace Wolf, appear at the

Case 1:05-cv-00876-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 03/24/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

scheduling conference, or respond to or appear at the order to

show cause. 

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, BCV’s default is entered. 

SO ORDERED

DATED: March _24__, 2006.

____/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00876-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 03/24/06 Page 7 of 7