Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-NLS

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

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER and 

Sara Elizabeth Siegler,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

TNK THERAPEUTICS, INC., BDL

PRODUCTS, INC., CARGENIX

HOLDINGS LLC, TUFTS MEDICAL

CENTER, PROSPECT

CHARTERCARE ROGER WILLIAMS

MEDICAL CENTER LLC, HENRY JI,

RICHARD PAUL JUNGHANS,

STEVEN C. KATZ, and THE BOARD

OF DIRECTORS OF SORRENTO

THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-NLS

ORDER 

[ECF No. 65.]

INTRODUCTION

On November 5, 2018 pro se Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler1filed a motion 

requesting (1) leave to be exempt from the obligation to deliver courtesy copies to 

 

1 For ease of reference, the Court will refer to both named Plaintiffs in the above-mentioned case as 

“Plaintiff.” 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 67 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
- 2 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-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

the court, as required under the applicable CM/ECF rules and (2) reconsideration of 

parts of the Court’s order dated October 31, 2018 (EF No. 63).2

DISCUSSION

With respect to the first part of the motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

request for an exemption, and orders that she may fulfill her courtesy copy 

obligations by emailing the requisite documents to the chambers e-file, 

efile_curiel@casd.uscourts.gov.

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration pertains to the Court’s decision (1) to 

set Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint for hearing for February 15, 

2019, and (2) denying Plaintiff’s motion for entry of clerk’s default, and for default 

judgment against the Board of Directors of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (ECF No. 

65.) The request for reconsideration is DENIED as to both items. 

In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for reconsideration 

“[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief 

has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” See Shaw v. 

Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 13-CV-1295 JLS (BLM), 2016 WL 7634441, at *1 

(S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2016) (citing Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1).). “The moving party must 

provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, new or different facts and 

circumstances which previously did not exist.” Id. The decision on a motion for 

reconsideration lies in the Court’s sound discretion. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 

F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enter. Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 

F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)).

Plaintiff has failed to support her motion for reconsideration by affidavit. 

Nor has she indicated what new or different facts and circumstances would warrant 

reconsideration. Thus, reconsideration is not warranted on either issue. 

 

2 Plaintiff also requested the Court direct the Clerk to re-upload certain exhibit pages which were erroneously 

omitted from her Amended Complaint (ECF No. 3.) The Court has communicated with the Clerk’s office, and the 

Clerk’s office has indicated that it has supplemented ECF No. 3. 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 67 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
- 3 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-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

In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, however, the Court will note the 

following: Even had her motion for reconsideration been properly before the Court, 

the Court would not have seen fit to change course with respect to her request for 

clerk’s default and the motion for default judgment. 

A clerk’s entry of default is a necessary predicate to obtaining default 

judgment. Ordinarily, a party must initiate a request to the Clerk’s office directly to 

obtain entry of default. The Court, at its discretion, may also order the Clerk to 

enter a default upon request. Any such request must, however, contain an affidavit 

or declaration that the summons and complaint have been properly served. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 55(a) (requiring that a party’s failure to plead or defend must be shown 

by “affidavit or otherwise” for an entry of default); Tracy v. CEO, Successor 

Deutsche Nat. Tr. Co., No. 3:11-CV-0436-LRH-VPC, 2011 WL 6400311, at *1 (D. 

Nev. Dec. 20, 2011) (“In order to obtain a default judgment, a party must first 

obtain a clerk’s entry of default which can only be obtained by establishing, 

through an affidavit, that a defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend itself 

in the action.”). That affidavit must also demonstrate that the party requesting entry 

of judgment “properly effected service on the defaulting party.” Oner v. Creditors 

Specialty Serv., No. 216CV00325GMNPAL, 2017 WL 901892, at *1 (D. Nev. 

Mar. 6, 2017) (“As a prerequisite to entry of clerk’s default, a plaintiff must 

demonstrate that he properly effected service on the defaulting party.”). 

Because Plaintiff’s request for clerk’s default was not submitted with the 

requisite affidavit (See ECF No. 62, at 22–26), neither the Court, nor the Clerk’s 

office, would have been able to enter default. Although the Court will not revisit its 

earlier order denying Plaintiff’s request for an entry of default, Plaintiff is welcome 

to request Clerk’s default anew.3 

 

3 To aid the Plaintiff, the Court refers to Docket entry 6 in White v. Bas Food Servs. Inc., No. 3:16-CV02818-WQH-KSC as an example for a request of clerk’s entry of default. 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 67 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
- 4 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-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

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s request for exemption from the courtesy copy requirement is 

GRANTED in accordance with the directives contained in this order. Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The motion hearing originally set for this 

motion, on February 15, 2019, is VACATED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 3, 2018

 

4 The other motions scheduled for hearing on February 15, 2019 remain calendared. (See ECF No. 18, 19, 

46.) The order to vacate the hearing pertains solely to the present motion. 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 67 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4