Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00805/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00805-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Pursuant to an order issued by this Court on 5/9/07, Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for

Default is treated as a Motion to Set Aside the Entry of Default. 

*E-Filed 6/26/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DANIEL R. CLARK, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. C07-00805 HRL

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

 

Pro se Plaintiffs Daniel and Yupapan Clark bring suit under the Federal Tort Claims

Act. They allege that the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of the Navy

were negligent in processing Daniel Clark's application for disability retirement benefits.

A) Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default

Default was entered by the Clerk of this Court based on Plaintiffs' claim that Defendant

defaulted on its responsive pleading service obligation. Defendant moves to set aside the entry.1

 It is undisputed that FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(3)(A) is applicable to this case, which states that the

United States "shall serve an answer to the complaint ... within 60 days after the United States

attorney is served with the pleading asserting the claim." Further, it is undisputed that

Case 5:07-cv-00805-HRL Document 45 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 L-R 5-5(a)(2) Manner of Service for Cases Not Subject to Electronic Case Filing. "If the serving

party elects to send the pleading or paper by mail, it must be mailed 3 days before the due date[.]"

3

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(2)(B): Service is made by "Mailing a copy to the last known address of the

person served. Service by mail is complete on mailing." [emphasis added]

4

 Even if the response was untimely, Plaintiffs suffered no prejudice from the three day delay and

therefore entry of default would be inappropriate. See, Apache Nitrogen Products, Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 145

F.R.D. 674, 682 (D.Ariz. 1993). 

2

Defendant mailed its responsive pleading to Plaintiffs on the sixtieth day. The dispute here is

over the sufficiency of mailing the pleading on the date service is due. 

Plaintiffs claim that according to Local Rule 5-5, if a party decides to serve a pleading

through the mail, the pleading must be mailed three days prior to the due date.2 Plaintiffs

therefore assert that timely service under L.R. 5-5 and FED. R. CIV. P. 12 requires Defendant to

mail its responsive pleading fifty-seven days after receiving the complaint. Accordingly, they

argue that Defendant's responsive pleading was late and the entry of default was proper. 

However, Defendant correctly argues that service was timely because its response was

mailed on the sixtieth day and because service is complete upon mailing. Kim v. Commandant,

Def. Language Inst., Foreign Language Ctr., 772 F.2d 521, 524 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiffs

were timely served under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 5(b)(2)(B).3

 Furthermore,

Plaintiffs' argument based on the Local Rules is flawed because those rules cannot be construed

to contradict the Federal Rules; they may only supplement them. See, L-R 1-2(b); See also,

Jackson v. Crosby, 375 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2004). This Court cannot uphold a reading

of the Local Rules which effectively shortens the time available to Defendant to respond to a

pleading.4

 Accordingly, the Motion to Set Aside the Entry of Default is GRANTED. 

B) Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

This motion arises from an interaction between the parties which prompted Plaintiffs to

conclude that defense counsel was discourteous. It began when Defendant served a motion on

Plaintiffs, signifying its intention to file it with the Court. The following day, this Court issued

an order which made filing that motion unnecessary. Plaintiffs, apparently confused by the fact

that the motion was not filed, contacted the Court to clear up the matter. Defendant then wrote

Case 5:07-cv-00805-HRL Document 45 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

a letter to Plaintiffs explaining its decision not to file the motion. Plaintiffs view this incident as

evidence of Defendant’s “reckless disregard of these judicial proceedings” and accordingly

move for sanctions. 

Defendant contends that there is no basis for sanctions when it is only guilty of deciding

not to file an unnecessary motion. Further, Defendant points to the letter sent to Plaintiffs

explaining its decision not to file the motion as further evidence of its attempts to work with

Plaintiffs. 

Defense counsel might have told Plaintiffs promptly that the motion was not, in fact,

filed. However, Plaintiffs suffered no harm other than perhaps a period of confusion,

subsequently rectified by the letter from Defendant's counsel. Finding no basis for sanctions,

Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/26/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-00805-HRL Document 45 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Lawrence E. Eiser Larry.Eiser@USDOJ.Gov, Hope.Swann@USDOJ.Gov 

Daniel R. Clark 

585 Hawthorne Street 

Unit 205 

Monterey, CA 93940 

Yupapan Clark

585 Hawthorne Street

Unit 205

Monterey, CA 93940

James G. Touhey, Jr. 

U. S. Department of Justice 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

Post Office Box 888 

Washington, DC 20044 

Peter D. Keisler 

United States Department of Justice 

Assistant Attorney General 

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Room 7312 

Washington, DC 20530 

Dated: 6/26/07 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:07-cv-00805-HRL Document 45 Filed 06/26/07 Page 4 of 4