Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03884/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03884-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSAHON OMOREGIE,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-3884 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO ORDER THE CLERK TO ENTER

BOARDWALK AUTO CENTER, INC. and DEFAULT, MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS,

VW CREDIT LEASING, LTD. and AND MOTION TO STRIKE

VW CREDIT, INC.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Pro se plaintiff Osahon Omoregie’s (“Omoregie”) motions for orders directing the

court clerk to enter default against all defendants, sanctioning defendants VW Credit

Leasing, Inc. and VW Credit, Inc. (collectively “VW”), imposing Rule 11 sanctions upon

defendant Boardwalk Auto Center, Inc. (“Boardwalk”), and striking Boardwalk’s answers

came on for hearing on November 14, 2007. Plaintiff Omoregie did not appear at the

scheduled hearing. Defendant Boardwalk appeared by its counsel Patrick R. Co and

defendant VW appeared by its counsel Brian C. Frontino. 

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and considered the arguments of

counsel and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court DENIES

Case 4:07-cv-03884-PJH Document 82 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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

plaintiff’s motions, for the reasons stated at the hearing, and summarized as follows:

1. The court DENIES the motion to direct the clerk to enter default against all

defendants because the court finds that both Boardwalk and VW clearly manifested their

intent to defend against plaintiff’s complaint. Wilson v. Moore Assocs., Inc., 564 F.2d 366,

369 (9th Cir. 1977) (“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 parties have sufficed when the party in default has thereby demonstrated a clear

purpose to defend the suit”). Moreover, judgments by default are disfavored, and the

purpose of default is to protect diligent parties from delay and uncertainty caused by

unresponsive parties. See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Tech., Inc.,

840 F.2d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, the delay was de minimis and no uncertainty as

to defendants’ intent to participate in this litigation has been shown.

2. The court DENIES the motion for sanctions. The court finds that defendants

VW acted in good faith in defending the action. Therefore, the omissions of fact or

misstatements of law complained of did not rise to the level of bad faith required for the

court to invoke its inherent power to sanction. United States v. Stoneberger, 805 F.2d

1391, 1392 (9th Cir. 1986) (“A specific finding of bad faith, however, must “precede any

sanction under the court's inherent powers”) (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447

U.S. 752, 764 (1980)).

3. The court DENIES the motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The court will treat

Boardwalk’s proposed amended answer submitted with its opposition papers as an

amended pleading for the purposes of Rule 11. Thus, the court finds that defendant

Boardwalk corrected its answer within the 21 day safe harbor period provided by Rule 11. 

The court further orders that the proposed amended answer may be filed.

4. The court DENIES the motion to strike defendant Boardwalk’s answer. The

court finds that Boardwalk’s denials, based on a lack of information or belief formed after a

reasonable inquiry, were reasonable given the circumstances, and the short time frame

Case 4:07-cv-03884-PJH Document 82 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

within which to answer. The court further finds that although they may fail on the merits,

Boardwalk’s affirmative defenses are sufficiently pleaded. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03884-PJH Document 82 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 3