Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01652/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01652-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALFRED HARDING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-01652-SI 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT ALFRED 

HARDING’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE 

ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Re: Dkt. No. 44

Before the Court is defendant Alfred Harding’s motion to set aside the entries of default 

against him. Dkt. No. 44. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate 

for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for August 9, 2019. The Court 

DENIES defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

The government filed its complaint against Mr. Harding on March 15, 2018 and served him 

with the complaint and summons on March 22, 2018. Dkt. Nos. 1, 10. Mr. Harding’s answer was 

due on April 12, 2018. Mr. Harding did not file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint 

by the April 12, 2018 deadline. The government moved an entry of default on April 17, 2018.1 Dkt. 

No. 16. On April 18, 2018, the clerk entered a default against Mr. Harding. Dkt. Nos. 17, 18. The 

 

1 The government first moved for entry of default judgment from the clerk. Dkt. No. 11, 

4/16/18. The Clerk declined that request, as no default had been entered. Dkt. No. 15.

Case 3:18-cv-01652-SI Document 46 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

instant motion, filed over a year later, is the first time Mr. Harding has sought to set aside the default 

judgment. 

During the 15 months between entry of the judgment and Mr. Harding’s present motion, the 

government was in contact with Mr. Harding numerous times, including by phone, email, and in 

person for his deposition on May 20, 2019. Dkt. No. 45 at 2. Mr. Harding was repeatedly informed 

by the government that he is in default. Id. Mr. Harding also went so far as to come to the courthouse 

on June 28, 2019,the day a settlement conference was held before Judge Laporte, id. at 3, but he did 

not go inside to attend the settlement conference. Id.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). The 

Court considers three factors in determining if good cause exists: (1) whether the defendant engaged 

in culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and 

(3) whether reopening the default judgement would prejudice the plaintiff. Franchise Holding II, 

LLC. v. Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925–26 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court may 

deny a motion to set aside a default if any one of the three factors is present. Id. However, “[a]s a 

general rule, default judgments are disfavored; cases should be decided upon their merits whenever 

reasonably possible.” Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 585 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009)

DISCUSSION

Mr. Harding admits he “received court pages saying [he] was in default but not how to rectify 

the two defaults on April 18, 2018 and July 30, 2018.” Dkt. No. 44. Not only did he receive these 

papers, he was in contact with the government via email, phone, and in person during which the 

government informed him of his default status. Dkt. No. 45 at 2. Mr. Harding does not provide any 

explanation why he waited over a year to contest the default entered against him. Rather, he argues 

that he “had no counsel” and that “[i]t should be the duty of the court to tell, notify (sic) the defendant 

what should be done to rectify the situation.” Dkt. No. 44 at 2. Neither argument is persuasive. 

Nor does Mr. Harding provide any reason to reopen the discovery process (of which he was aware 

Case 3:18-cv-01652-SI Document 46 Filed 07/17/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and in which he recalcitrantly participated).

2 The Court finds that the motion is interposed solely 

for the purposes of delay and is not meritorious.

The Court finds that Mr. Harding’s default was solely his own choice. He has not suggested 

that he has any meritorious defense, and the Court is aware of none. As such, good cause does not 

exist to set aside the default and Mr. Harding’s motion is DENIED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

2 The government does not oppose setting aside the default, but does oppose reopening

discovery.

Case 3:18-cv-01652-SI Document 46 Filed 07/17/19 Page 3 of 3