Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00118/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00118-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

CANDY KELLY, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

EVERETT R. ECHOLS, II, M.D., )

an individual, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-CV-00118-AWI-SMS

ORDER VACATING HEARING SET FOR

FEBRUARY 24, 2006, ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND

TAKING MOTION OFF CALENDAR (DOC.

44)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT PLAINTIFF

SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING WHEN

REFILING AND RENOTICING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

Review of the docket reveals that Plaintiff filed the

original complaint on January 24, 2005. A first amended complaint

was filed on February 23, 2005. Service of a “complaint” was

effected on February 24, 2005 with respect to Defendants Chapman

and Echols. Plaintiff filed yet another “first amended complaint”

on March 8, 2005. Defendant Hernandez were served with a first

amended complaint on or about March 31, 2005. On August 31, 2005,

Case 1:05-cv-00118-AWI -DLB Document 54 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Judge Ishii ruled on Defendant Qualitest’s motions to dismiss;

various dismissals were effected, and leave to amend was granted.

Plaintiff then filed on September 12, 2005, a document called a

second amended complaint even though a second amended complaint

was already on file. Plaintiff inexplicably filed without leave

of court yet another second amended complaint on February 3,

2006. 

On January 20, 2006, Plaintiff filed a notice of motion and

motion for default judgment, which is presently set to be heard

on February 24, 2006. On January 25, 2006, the Court directed

Plaintiff to file supplemental briefing, and Plaintiff filed it

on February 10, 2006. The Court has reviewed the supplemental

briefing. The Court finds that Plaintiff did not substantially

comply with the Court’s directions to provide briefing regarding

which law governs this controversy, the elements of the claims in

question and thus the sufficiency of the claims pled, or the

measure of damages and the damages recoverable. In addition,

further review of the docket, the pleadings, and Plaintiff’s

moving papers have revealed additional concerns that will be

addressed in the directions regarding briefing hereinbelow.

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of

the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 11-110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501

U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991). Local Rule 11-110 provides that a failure

of counsel or of a party to comply with the Local Rules or with

any order of the Court may be grounds of imposition by the Court

of any and all sanctions authorized by statute, rule, or within

Case 1:05-cv-00118-AWI -DLB Document 54 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 6
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

the inherent power of the Court. A Court may impose monetary

sanctions, payable to the Court, in the nature of a fine pursuant

to the Court’s inherent powers where the Court finds that the

offending conduct was undertaken in bad faith. Zambrano v. City

of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1478 (9th Cir. 1989).

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the

disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both

the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir. 1992).

It is an extremely inefficient use of the Court’s resources

for the Court to address a motion such as Plaintiff’s in a

piecemeal fashion, considering a motion repeatedly and holding

serial hearings after additional submissions are ordered. The

Court finds that the efficient administration of justice requires

that the Plaintiff’s motion not be calendared for hearing and

decision until Plaintiff submits the requested points and

authorities needed by the Court to prepare findings and

recommendations which must follow any hearing.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that

1) The hearing set for February 24, 2006, on Plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment IS VACATED, and Plaintiff’s motion IS

TAKEN OFF CALENDAR with prejudice; in order for the motion to be

put on calendar again, Plaintiff will have to re-notice and refile the motion; and

2) At the time Plaintiff renotices and refiles the motion,

Plaintiff shall submit points and authorities with respect to the

following:

Case 1:05-cv-00118-AWI -DLB Document 54 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 6
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

a) What is the operative complaint, which complaint was

served on each of the defendants against whom default judgment is

sought, whether the most recently filed second amended complaint

should be stricken because filed without leave of court, whether

in view of amendment the parties against whom default judgment is

sought have sufficient notice, and whether the Court has

jurisdiction to and should grant a default judgment against a

party on a complaint that has been superseded by amendment.

b) The legal elements of each claim upon which judgment is

sought, including what law governs (i.e., which state’s law if

Plaintiff alleges diversity jurisdiction, etc.), and whether the

allegations of the operative complaint satisfy each of the

required elements and state sufficient claims.

The Court has already once sought briefing on the issue of

the legal sufficiency of the complaint, but Plaintiff has failed

to address which law governs and has failed to provide points and

authorities under the law Plaintiff claims governs regarding what

the elements of the pertinent claim/s are.

c) What law governs the measure of damages, and what types

of damages or relief is Plaintiff entitled to recover on the

claim/s stated.

d) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against only

some of, and less than all of, the named defendants, against whom

Plaintiff seeks damages jointly and severally (Application at 2),

and on less than all claims set forth.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an

action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim,

or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are

Case 1:05-cv-00118-AWI -DLB Document 54 Filed 02/15/06 Page 4 of 6
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

involved, the court may direct the entry of a final

judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the

claims or parties only upon an express determination

that there is no just reason for delay and upon an 

express direction for the entry of judgment. In the 

absence of such determination and direction, any order

or other form of decision, however designated, which

adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights

and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall

not terminate the action as to any of the claims or 

parties, and the order or other form of decision is

subject to revision at any time before the entry of

judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights

and liabilities of all the parties.

The policy concerns underlying Rule 54(b), namely, finality,

severability, and avoidance of piecemeal litigation, arise

principally in the context of the availability of appellate

recourse. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 432-

48 (1956); W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. International Medical

Prosthetics Research Association, Inc., 975 F.2d 858, 862-65

(Fed. Cir. 1992). However, considerations of fairness and the

sound administration of justice are also applicable to the entry

of a default judgment in a case involving multiple parties or

claims. Further, default judgment should not be entered against a

defendant who is alleged to be liable jointly with other

defendants until the case is adjudicated against all defendants,

or all defendants have defaulted; the possibility of inconsistent

judgments must be avoided. Frow v. La Vega, 15 Wall. 552, 554-55

(1872) (default judgment against one defendant charged with joint

participation in fraud held to be improper until judgment against

the other defendants was adjudicated). It has been held that

despite the absence of an allegation of joint liability, entry of

default judgment against a single defaulting defendant is

improper where the defendants are similarly situated defendants,

Case 1:05-cv-00118-AWI -DLB Document 54 Filed 02/15/06 Page 5 of 6
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

even if not jointly and severally liable, and where delay is

necessary to avoid an inherently inconsistent result. In re First

T.D. & Investment, Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir.2001)

(holding that default judgment should not be entered where

defendants in similar transactions such that it was not logically

possible that one defendant could be liable without another being

liable); see Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. Ltd v. Kuei, 194

F.Supp.2d 995 1005-10 (N.D.Cal. 2001) (collecting cases and

suggesting that the unifying principle is that the risk of

inconsistent judgments is too high, and entry of default judgment

against a defendant is inappropriate, where other answering

defendants remain in the case without their liability being

adjudicated, and where under the theory of the complaint,

liability of all the defendants must be uniform.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00118-AWI -DLB Document 54 Filed 02/15/06 Page 6 of 6