Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02415/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02415-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

CLAUDINE OSGOOD, an individual,

and ANTON EWING, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv2415-GPC(BGS)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

EWING’S MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS EWING

AND OSGOOD’S MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF DEFAULT 

[Dkt. Nos. 64.]

v.

MAIN STREAT MARKETING, LLC,

a Utah limited liability company;

JERROD ROBKER, an individual aka

Jerrod McAllister; Does 1-100, ABC

Corporations 1-100, XYZ, LLC’s 1-

100,,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Anton Ewing’s motion to strike Defendant’s

Answer. (Dkt. No. 64-3.) Plaintiffs Ewing and Osgood also filed a motion for default,

or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 64.) No opposition has

been filed. On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff Ewing filed a declaration stating that

Defendants have failed to file an opposition. (Dkt. No. 66.) Based on the reasoning

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Ewing’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer and

GRANTS Plaintiffs Ewing and Osgood’s motion for entry of default. 

Background

On September 26, 2016, the case was removed from state court. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

On October 4, 2016, Plaintiffs Anton Ewing and Claudine Osgood, proceeding pro se, 

- 1 - [16cv2415-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:16-cv-02415-GPC-BGS Document 67 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

filed a first amended complaint alleging three causes of action for violations under the

California Invasion of Privacy Act(“CIPA”) pursuant toCalifornia PenalCode section

630 et. seq.; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”),

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), and (d)); and the Telephone Consumer Protection

Act (“TCPA”) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227. (Dkt. No. 11, FAC). After the Court

denied Plaintiff Ewing’s motion to remand and granted in part and denied in part

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike, Plaintiffs filed a second amended

complaint on January 17, 2017 against Defendants Main Streat Marketing, LLC and

Jerrod Robker aka Jerrod McAllister (“McAllister”). (Dkt. No. 36.) An answer was

filed by both Defendants on January 31, 2017. (Dkt. No. 37.) On March 27, 2017, the

Court granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. (Dkt. No. 51.) In its

order, the Court directed Main Streat Marketing, LLC to obtain substitute counsel

within thirty days and have counsel file a notice of appearance. (Id.) The Court also

directed Defendant McAllister to notify the Court of his current mailing address. (Id.) 

Four months have passed and both Defendants have failed to comply. The Court noted

that Main Streat Marketing, LLC may be subject to default proceedings if it failed to

obtain new counsel. (Id. at 3.) 

Plaintiff Ewing now moves to strike both Defendants’ answer and seeks and

entry of default. Both Plaintiffs also filed a motion for entry of default, or in the

alternative, a motion for summary judgment. Defendants have not filed an opposition. 

A. Motion to Strike Answer

Ewing moves to strike the Answer of Defendants since both have failed to

defend the action and failed to comply with Court orders and seeks an entry of default

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 55(a)1. 

Obtaining default judgment is a two step procedure. Rule 55 provides that

“[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to

1Ewing alleges he seeks default under Rule 55(b), (Dkt. No. 64-3 at 5); however,

the appropriate section is Rule 55(a). Since default has not yet been entered, Plaintiffs

cannot seek default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.

- 2 - [16cv2415-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:16-cv-02415-GPC-BGS Document 67 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

plead or otherwise defend . . . the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(a). Second, after default is properly entered, a party seeking relief other than a

sum certain must apply to the Court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). 

Since Defendants filed an Answer, the Court cannot enter default until the

Answer isstricken. An answer may be stricken if defendantsfail to defend themselves. 

See Microsoft Corp. v. Marturano, No. 06cv1747 OWW GSA, 2009 WL 1530040, at

*2, 6 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2009) (striking answer against defendant who persistently

failed to participate in the action); Galtieri -Carlson v. Victoria M. Morton Enters.,

08cv1777 FCD-KJN-PS, 2010WL 3386473, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2010). In addition, when

a corporation fails to retain counsel to represent it in an action, its answer may be

stricken and a default judgment entered against it. Employee Painters’ Trust v. Ethan

Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007). Procedurally, courts have stricken the

answers of corporate defendants who have failed to defend themselves, directed entry

of default, and then allowed the plaintiff to move for default judgment. See Rojas v.

Hawgs Seafood Bar, Inc., No. C08–03819 JF (PVT), 2009 WL 1255538, at *1 (N.D.

Cal. May 5, 2009) (“When a corporation fails to retain counsel to represent it in an

action, its answer may be stricken and a default judgment entered against it.”); Oracle

America, Inc. v. Serv. Key, LLC, No. C12-790SBA, 2013 WL 1195620, at *2-3 (N.D.

Cal. Mar. 22, 2013) (ordering that if substitute counsel is not found, the court will

strike answer and direct entry of default, and then plaintiff may file a motion for default

judgment). 

Here, Main Streat Marketing, LLC failed to retain counsel as directed by the

Court. Furthermore, Jerrod McAllister has failed to comply with the Court’s direction

to notify the Court of its address, has failed to file an opposition to Ewing’s motion for

default judgment; motion for leave to file an amended complaint and motion for

summary judgment; and failed to file an opposition to the instant motion. McAllister

has continuously failed to defend this action and it does not appear that he will be

- 3 - [16cv2415-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:16-cv-02415-GPC-BGS Document 67 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

doing so.2 Ewing notes that Defendants are also defendants in another TCPA case in

this district, Melingonis v. Main Streat Marketing, LLC & Jerrod Robker, 16cv2292-

MMA (JLB). In that case, entry of default was entered on July 17, 2017 since no

answer had been filed in the case. (Id., Dkt. No. 15.) 

Accordingly, because Defendants have failed to defend themselves in this action,

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Ewing’s motion to strike the Answer of Main Streat

Marketing, LLC and McAllister.

Ewing and Osgood also move for entry of default as to both Defendants. 

Because Defendants’ answer has been stricken, the Court GRANTS Ewing and

Osgood’s motion for default pursuant to Rule 55(a).3 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Ewing’s motion to strike

Defendants’ Answer and GRANTS Plaintiffs Ewing and Osgood’s motion for entry of 

default pursuant to Rule 55(a). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter default

as to Defendants Main Streat Marketing, LLC and Jerrod Robker. The hearing date

set for August 4, 2017 shall be vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 27, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

2While not verified, Ewing claimsthatJerrod McAllister wasrecently sentenced

to a term of incarceration in Utah after pleading guilty to three felony crimes. (Dkt.

No. 66 at 1.) 

3Since the Court enters default asto both Defendants, the Court need not address

Plaintiffs’ alternative motion for summary judgment. 

- 4 - [16cv2415-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:16-cv-02415-GPC-BGS Document 67 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - [16cv2415-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:16-cv-02415-GPC-BGS Document 67 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5