Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05336/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05336-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-05336-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DANIEL DELACRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-05336-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 277, 296, 297, 298

Plaintiff Daniel Delacruz (“Plaintiff”) alleges in this action that the defendants violated his 

civil rights and conspired to deny him the ability to practice law in this state. Federal jurisdiction 

arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Presently before the court are four motions filed by Plaintiff. 

Dkt. Nos. 277, 296-298. These motions are suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for May 12, 2016, is VACATED. 

Having carefully considered the pleadings, the court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. In the first motion (Dkt. No. 277), Plaintiff seeks an order for the recovery of 

expenses and costs pursuant to a portion of California Civil Procedure Code § 425.16(c)(1) which 

provides: “If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to 

cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff 

prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5.” This motion is misplaced. In the order 

addressing various motions filed on September 29, 2015 (Dkt. No. 250), the court denied all thenpending § 425.16 motions without prejudice after all claims in Plaintiff’s complaint were 

dismissed on other grounds. The court did not reach the merits of the § 425.16 motions nor did it 

find that such motions were frivolous. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED.

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 317 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-05336-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

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

2. The second motion is one seeking partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 296). This 

motion is premature. Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows a motion for summary 

judgment to be filed “at any time,” the rule also permits the court to “defer considering the motion 

or deny it,” to “allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery,” or to “issue 

any other appropriate order.” Here, regardless of whether or not Plaintiff’s arguments are 

meritorious, the defendants are entitled to an opportunity to pursue discovery before responding to 

any motion for summary judgment. But since dispositive motions challenging the pleadings 

remain under advisement, Judge Lloyd’s order staying discovery remains in effect. Thus, since 

the parties have yet to engage in any meaningful investigation of Plaintiff’s claims, the motion for 

partial summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being renewed at a later stage. 

3. In the third and fourth motions (Dkt. Nos. 297, 298), Plaintiff moves for an order 

requiring the Clerk of Court “to enter a mandated default” against two defendants, Raquel 

Ramirez and Joshua Sigal. The court finds Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive. Entry of default is 

not mandated under these circumstances; to the contrary, proceedings in default are generally 

disfavored. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). “Cases should be decided 

upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Here, entry of default against Ramirez and 

Sigal is inappropriate because both have demonstrated an intent to defend this action by filing 

motions in response to the Amended Complaint. See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat 

Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that entry of default is 

inappropriate if a defendant indicates its intent to defend the action). Consequently, the Clerk 

correctly declined to enter the defaults. The motions seeking such relief are therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05336-EJD Document 317 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2