Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01764/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01764-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of Social Security Benefits

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZABIAN R. CROSBY, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner )

of Social Security, )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:09-cv-01764 GSA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR HEARING

(Docs. 14, 15, 20 and 21)

I. Introduction

On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff, Zabian Crosby (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Default

Judgment. (Docs. 14 and 15). The Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) filed an

opposition on April 28, 2010. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff did not file reply. Instead on May 13, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Hearing. (Docs. 20 and 21). 

Based on a review of the pleadings, the Court determined that the matter is suitable for

decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230 (h). Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing is

DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is also DENIED. 

II. Relevant Background

Plaintiff filed this action on October 7, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On October 9, 2009, this Court

granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) On that same date, the Court

issued its Scheduling Order and Summons to Defendant. (Docs. 4 & 5.) Thereafter, Defendant

received service of process on December 7, 2009. (Doc. 8.) 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01764-GSA Document 22 Filed 05/21/10 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

On February 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default, wherein he asked the

Clerk of the Court to enter default against Defendant for its purported failure to respond to the

summons within sixty days. (Doc. 10.) On February 17, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request. 

(Doc. 11). Plaintiff has filed the instant motion on April 13, 2010, requesting default judgment.

(Doc. 14).

In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests default judgment because the Defendant filed the

administrative record on April 8, 2010 rather than on April 6, 2010, which was the date set forth in

this Court’s scheduling order. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment on the 1

basis that Plaintiff’s motion does not establish the merits of his claim but merely asks for default

judgment because the government’s answer was filed two days late. (Doc. 18). Defendant argues the

motion is therefore insufficient.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff moves for entry of default judgment. The Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a

motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), which provides that default judgment

may be entered:

By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default

judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent

person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like

fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is

sought has personally appeared or by a representative, that party or its

representative must be served with written notice of the application at least seven

days before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals -

preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial ...

Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of a default

judgment include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's

substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action,

(5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was due to

Defendant has 120 days from the date it receives service of process within which to file the administrative

1

record. (See Doc. 5 at ¶ 2 [“Within one hundred twenty (120) days after service of the complaint, respondent shall

serve a copy of the administrative record on appellant and file it with the court. The filing of the administrative

record shall be deemed an answer to the complaint”].) Thus, because Defendant was served on December 7, 2009,

Defendant had through and including April 6, 2010, within which to file the administrative record in this matter. The

filing of the administrative record is deemed to be an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

2

Case 1:09-cv-01764-GSA Document 22 Filed 05/21/10 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

excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policyunderlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring

decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986).

As a preliminarymatter, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient. Prior to filing a motion

for default judgment, default must be entered by the Clerk of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 55(a). 

Although Plaintiff had previously requested that entry of default be entered, his request was denied. 

(Doc. 11). Plaintiff has not renewed this request. If default had been entered, Plaintiff could then

file a motion for default judgment. When considering an application for a default judgment, a court

must determine whether Plaintiff’s claims are legallysufficient. An application for default judgment

qualifies as a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(b)(1) and Local Rule 101

and it should include briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(b). Thus, Plaintiff should have provided the

Court with points and authorities containing citations showing that Plaintiff’s claims are legally

sufficient.

Notwithstanding the above, if Plaintiff had obtained an entryof default, the Court would deny

Plaintiff’s motion based on an application of the Eitel factors outlined above. Plaintiff has not

provided the Court with any legal authority in support of his motion, nor has he established that the

complaint contains the necessaryelements to sufficientlystate a claim. Although Plaintiff will suffer

some prejudice, a denial is warranted since Defendant did appear in this action, albeit two days late. 

Moreover, since this is a Social Security case, there will likely be a material dispute concerning the

facts in this action, and as a general rule, default judgments are disfavored. Westchester Fire Ins.

Co. v. Mendez, 585 F. 3d 1183 (9 Cir. 2009). Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever th

possible. Pena v. Seguros Las Comercial, S.A., 770 F. 2d 811, 814 (9 Cir. 1985). Finally, a

th

default judgment may only be entered against the United States or its agencies if the claimant

establishes a claim or a right by evidence that satisfies the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d); See also,

Borzeka v. Heckler, 739 F. 2d 444, 446 (9 Cir. 1984) (Default judgment not appropriate in Social th

Security case because the motion only alleged that the Commissioner had not timely responded to

the complaint, and therefore, did not address the merits of the case). Here, the Court cannot make

a finding that Plaintiff has established his claim under these circumstances. 

///

3

Case 1:09-cv-01764-GSA Document 22 Filed 05/21/10 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

IV. Conclusion

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motions are denied, however, the Court will modify the

briefing schedule to rectify any prejudice Plaintiff may have suffered as a result of Defendant’s late

filing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED;

2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing is DENIED;

3) Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief shall be served on Defendant no later than June 22,

2010. The confidential letter brief shall outline the reasons why Plaintiff contends that a remand is

warranted. The confidential letter brief shall succinctly set forth the relevant issues and reasons for

remand. The confidential letter brief shall NOT be filed with the Court and shall be marked

“confidential;”

4) Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief no later than July 27, 2010. 

The response shall NOT be filed with the Court and shall be marked “confidential;

5) In the event that the parties stipulate to a remand to the Commissioner, the stipulation

shall be filed with the Court within fifteen (15) days after Defendant serves its response on Plaintiff;

6) In the event that Defendant does not agree to remand, Plaintiff shall file with the Court

and serve his opening brief on Defendant no later than August 26, 2010. Plaintiff shall refer to

pages 3 and 4 of this Court’s Scheduling Order issued on October 9, 2009 that outlines the required

elements of this brief (Doc. 5 at ¶ 11(a)-11(f));

7) Defendant’s opposition brief shall be filed with the Court and served on Plaintiff no later

than September 27, 2010; and

8) Plaintiff’s reply brief shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendant no later than

October 12, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

4

Case 1:09-cv-01764-GSA Document 22 Filed 05/21/10 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

Dated: May 20, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:09-cv-01764-GSA Document 22 Filed 05/21/10 Page 5 of 5