Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02101/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02101-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOPSCOTCH ADOPTIONS, INC., and

ROBIN SIZEMORE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VANESSA KACHADURIAN,

Defendant.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-02101 LJO GSA 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF REGARDING

“MOTION AND DECLARATION TO

VACATE JUDGMENT” FILED 

AUGUST 5, 2010

(Documents 44-48)

On December 2, 2009, Plaintiffs Hopscotch Adoptions, Inc. and Robin Sizemore filed the

complaint in this action. (Doc. 1.) On February 22, 2010, the Clerk of the Court entered default

as to Defendant Vanessa Kachudurian for her failure to appear, plead or answer Plaintiffs’

complaint. (Doc. 20.) Thereafter, on June 29, 2010, Plaintiffs moved for default judgment

against Defendant. (Docs. 23-24.) 

On August 6, 2010, this Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Bennet G. Kelley and Christopher E. Seymour personally appeared;

Defendant personally appeared pro se. (Doc. 49.) During the hearing, Defendant advised the

1

Case 1:09-cv-02101-MJS Document 50 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Court she had filed pleadings to set aside the default, however, the documents had not yet been

entered onto the Court’s electronic docketing system (“CM/ECF”). Accordingly, the hearing on

Plaintiffs’ motion was continued to September 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., and Defendant’s motion, if

filed, was to be heard that same date. (Doc. 49.)

Later that same date, Defendant’s motion was in fact entered into the CM/ECF system. 

(See Docs. 44-49.) This Court has now had an opportunity to review Defendant’s motion and

advises Defendant as to its deficiencies, in light of her pro se status.1

As Defendant was previously advised (see Doc. 42), Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provides a mechanism to set aside a default, such as the one entered here by the Clerk

on February 22, 2010. The rule states, in pertinent part: “(c) Setting Aside a Default or a 2

Default Judgment. [¶] The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set

aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b).” Thus, in order to set aside the default entered

against her on February 22, 2010, Defendant must show “good cause” for her failure to respond

to the summons and complaint. 

Because of the parallels that exist between granting relief from entry of default and

judgment on default, a court should consider the list of the factors used to set aside a default

judgment under Rule 60. Hawaii v. Carpenter's Trust Fund v. Stone, 794 F.2d 508, 513 (9th Cir.

1986) (citing 10 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2697 (1983);

see also Feliciano v. Reliant Tooling Co., 691 F.2d 653, 656 (3d Cir. 1982) (explaining that the

same factors that constitute "good cause" under Rule 55(c) govern the lifting of default

judgments under Rule 60(b)).

Defendant was advised during the August 6 hearing that Plaintiffs’ complaint contained 1

serious allegations and that it may be wise for Defendant to consider retaining counsel to assist

her in the defense of the action.

To be clear, default judgment has not yet been entered against Defendant. The Court will 2

consider entering default judgment, as requested by Plaintiffs’, at the hearing scheduled for

September 17, 2010. 

2

Case 1:09-cv-02101-MJS Document 50 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants district courts discretion to

relieve a party from a default judgment or order for reason of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or

excusable neglect. When a default is challenged on the grounds of excusable neglect, three

factors inform the court's exercise of discretion: (1) whether there was some culpable conduct by

a defendant which led to the default; (2) whether a plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced by a

set-aside, and (3) whether a defendant can present a meritorious defense to a claim. TCI Group

Life Insurance Plan v, Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Falk v. Allen, 739

F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). 

In the documents filed August 5, 2010, Defendant cites to the California Code of Civil

Procedure section 473 in support of her motion. However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

apply to this action, rather than California state procedural rules. Moreover, while Defendant

references surprise, mistake and excusable neglect, she does not offer any explanation for her

failure to respond to the summons and complaint. 

3

Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that state law regarding

service may be followed to serve a summons and complaint. Defendant does claim the service of

process was improper (Docs. 44 & 45), yet substitute service of process is permissible in

California. See Cal. C.C.P. § 415.20; see also Doc. 20 (“it appearing defendant having been duly

served with process as appears from the record and papers on file herein”). Moreover, whether

or not service was properly effected, Defendant fails to indicate when she became aware of the

legal action. Defendant’s declaration indicates that “Default Judgment paperwork arrived by

mail and [was] received 7/2/2010” (Doc. 48, ¶ 9); additional dates are also referenced. However,

Two supplemental documents - the declarations of Cynthia Allen Schenk and Ripseme 3

Toumanyan - were filed in support of Defendant’s motion. (Docs. 46-47.) These declarations

however do not offer any information relevant to whether or not the default entered February 22,

2010, should be set aside. Instead, the declarations speak to Defendant’s character which is not a

factor considered by the court in this motion.

3

Case 1:09-cv-02101-MJS Document 50 Filed 08/17/10 Page 3 of 4
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

the information provided does not explain how or when Defendant became aware that an action 

had been filed against her. 

Accordingly, Defendant shall file supplemental points and authorities addressing the

deficiencies identified herein. The pleading shall specifically identify the date upon which

Defendant learned of Plaintiffs’ complaint and shall also address what action or actions

Defendant took thereafter. If Defendant intends to challenge the propriety of the service of

process, she shall provide the relevant facts and supporting legal authority in support of the

assertion. Defendant shall file the supplemental pleading no later than September 3, 2010. 

Plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, shall be filed no later than September 10, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 17, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

i70h38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-02101-MJS Document 50 Filed 08/17/10 Page 4 of 4