Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03694/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03694-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco

TRUSTEES OF THE ILWU-PMA PENSION

PLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

 LINDRA ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 14-03694 JSW (LB)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS

TO SERVE LINDRA ANDERSON

WITH THEIR MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in interpleader and served it personally on Defendant Lindra

Anderson, who never appeared or answered. (Complaint, ECF No. 1; Certificate of Service, ECF

No. 7.) However, Plaintiffs and Defendant Ira Anderson (who did appear and answer) stated in their

November 5, 2014 case management conference statement that while Lindra Anderson “has not yet

filed an Answer or otherwise appeared in this case,” “on September 22, 2014 [she] informed

Plaintiffs that she intends to respond to the Complaint.” (11/5/2014 CMC Statement, ECF No. 15 at

3.) She never did. Plaintiffs then moved for and obtained entry of default. (Request for Entry of

Default, ECF No. 19; Entry of Default, ECF No. 21.) The record reflects no notice to Lindra

Anderson of that. Then, Plaintiffs moved for default judgment. (Motion fro Default Judgment, ECF

No. 25.) Again, the record reflects no notice to Lindra Anderson of that, either. 

The hearing on the motion currently is set for March 19, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. Under the

circumstances, the court directs Plaintiffs to serve Lindra Anderson by regular and certified mail (or

Case 3:14-cv-03694-LB Document 31 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

some other method that reflects actual receipt) with their motion for default judgment and a copy of

this order. See In re Roxford Foods, Inc., 12 F.3d 875, 880 (9th Cir. 1993) (“While it is true that

‘[t]he failure to provide 55(b)(2) notice, if the notice is required, is a serious procedural irregularity

that usually justifies setting aside a default judgment or reversing for the failure to do so,’ Wilson,

564 F.2d at 369, notice is only required where the party has made an appearance. ‘The appearance

need not necessarily be a formal one, i.e., one involving a submission or presentation to the court. In

limited situations, informal contacts between the parties have sufficed when the party in default has

thereby demonstrated a clear purpose to defend the suit.’ Id.”). Plaintiffs then must file a proof of

service and thereafter must file a declaration with any updates about delivery or other contacts with

Lindra Anderson. Also, as to notice, the court’s view is that regular mail is immediate, and the

second method more definitively establishes receipt, but Plaintiffs may use whatever method they

deem best suited to establishing the record that a default judgment requires. The court will keep the

hearing on calendar as is its custom with default judgments in order to make a clean record. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel may appear by telephone either by CourtCall or by providing a contact number to

courtroom deputy Lashanda Scott at 415-522-3140.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03694-LB Document 31 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 2