Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00895/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00895-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY J. OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABC LEGAL SERVICES, L.L.C., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00895-JLT-BAM

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET 

ASIDE DEFAULT AS MOOT AND 

GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE ANSWER 

(Doc. 82)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATON FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME (Doc. 88)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY 

OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT 

DIRECT LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. (Doc. 66)

 Plaintiff Anthony J. Oliver, a prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on July 

29, 2024. (Doc. 1.) He filed the operative first amended complaint on August 9, 2024. (Doc. 

11.) On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default against Defendant Direct 

Legal Support Inc. (Doc. 66.) 

On November 7, 2024, Defendant Direct Legal Support Inc. filed a motion for relief from 

default and for leave to file an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. 82.) 

Defendant Direct Legal Support Inc. asserts that there is good cause to set aside the default 

because it erroneously believed that Plaintiff intended to dismiss it from this case based on an 

email received by its counsel. (Id. at 5.) According to the proof of service, Plaintiff was served 

with a copy of the motion for relief by mail. (Id. at 21.)

Case 1:24-cv-00895-JLT-BAM Document 89 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 3
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 November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an extension of time to 

respond to Defendant Direct Legal Support Inc.’s motion to set aside default. (Doc. 88.) Plaintiff 

asserts that he has not received any copies of the motion, and there is no record of any legal mail 

being sent to Plaintiff at Baldwin State Prison. (Doc. 88.) Plaintiff reports that he has contacted 

defense counsel regarding the failure to receive copies of the motion. Plaintiff also reports that he 

attempted to contact counsel to obtain consent for the extension of time, but he was unable to do 

so. (Id.)

A review of the Court’s docket in this action reflects that no default as to Defendant 

Direct Legal Support Inc. has yet been entered by the Clerk of Court. (See generally Docket.) 

Entry of default is appropriate where a party has “failed to plead or otherwise defend” a suit. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 55(a). The entry of default would not be appropriate now given that Defendant Direct 

Legal Support Inc. has appeared and seeks to defend by filing an answer to the operative 

complaint. See Stephens v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 2018 WL 3655659, at *18 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 

2018) (“[T]he entry of default would not appropriate at this juncture since each such defendant 

has now appeared and filed or joined a motion to dismiss.”); see also Lee v. Brotherhood of 

Maint. of Way Emps.-Burlington N. Sys. Fed’n, 139 F.R.D. 376, 381 (D. Minn. 1991) (“Where a 

defendant appears and indicates a desire to contest an action, a court may exercise its discretion to 

refuse to enter default, in accordance with the policy of allowing cases to be tried on the merits.”) 

(citing 10 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and 

Procedure, § 2682 at 411 (2d ed. 1983)); cf. Brown v. California, No. CV 23-1966 ODW (PVC), 

2023 WL 3979449, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2023) (determining that appearance and motion to 

dismiss filed after request for entry of default sufficient to preclude entry of default). Absent

entry of default, the pending motion to set aside default by Defendant Direct Legal Support Inc. is 

moot. Likewise, any request for an extension of time to respond to such motion is moot. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant Direct Legal Support Inc.’s motion for relief from default is DENIED as 

moot. 

2. Defendant Direct Legal Support Inc.’s request for leave to file an answer to the first 

Case 1:24-cv-00895-JLT-BAM Document 89 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 3
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

amended complaint is GRANTED. Within seven (7) days of the date of this order, 

Defendant Direct Legal Support Inc. shall serve and file its responsive pleading. 

3. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an extension of time to respond to the motion for 

relief from default (Doc. 88) is DENIED as moot.

4. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (Doc. 66) against Defendant Direct Legal 

Support Inc. is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00895-JLT-BAM Document 89 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 3