Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02441/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02441-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

-1- 14cv2441-MMA (BGS) 

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 

SCOTT SCHUTZA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

BILL K. LAU, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 14cv2441-MMA (BGS) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

CHAN VAN HUYNH’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE CLERK’S 

ENTRY OF DEFAULT; 

[Doc. No. 23]

VACATING MOTION HEARING 

 On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff Scott Schutza initiated this disability discrimination 

action against the purported owner/operators of P2 Restaurant in San Diego, California. 

See Doc. No. 1. Several weeks later, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming Bill K. 

Lau, Trustee of the Lau Trust, Chan Van Huynh, and Nhu Le as defendants. See Doc. 

No. 6. The Clerk of Court has since entered default as to all three named defendants, 

based on their failure to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

See Doc. Nos. 17, 20, 22. Defendant Chan Van Huynh now moves to set aside the 

Clerk’s entry of default as to Plaintiff’s claims against him. See Doc. No. 23. Plaintiff 

has not filed an opposition to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

GRANTS Defendant’s motion. 

Case 3:14-cv-02441-MMA-BGS Document 24 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 2
 -2- 14cv2441-MMA (BGS) 

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

DISCUSSION

The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed 

motion pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the 

granting of a motion for failure to respond. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, “[i]f an opposing party fails to 

file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may 

constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” 

As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendant’s motion on the basis of 

Plaintiff’s failure to respond, and it chooses to do so. 

 The Court also notes that “judgment by default is a drastic step appropriate only in 

extreme circumstances; a case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits.” 

United States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yurban S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984)). In addition, a 

court’s discretion to set aside a default is “especially broad” where an entry of default, as 

opposed to a default judgment, is being set aside. O’Connor v. Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 364 

(9th Cir. 1994). Consequently, granting Defendant’s unopposed motion to set aside the 

Clerk’s entry of default facilitates the Court’s management of its docket, and in this 

particular instance, will assist with this case ultimately being determined on its merits. 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant Chan Van Huynh’s 

motion and SETS ASIDE the Clerk of Court’s previous entry of default against him. 

The Court VACATES the motion hearing previously scheduled for September 14, 2015. 

The Court further ORDERS that Defendant Van Huynh file a response to Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint on or before September 21, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 8, 2015 ________________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:14-cv-02441-MMA-BGS Document 24 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 2