Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03493/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03493-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 1

 Defendant's given name was misspelled in the Complaint. 

"Erik" is the correct spelling.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-3493 SC

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO SET ASIDE

ENTRY OF DEFAULT 

Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc. ("Plaintiff") offers subscriptionbased television programming via a direct broadcast satellite

system. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Erik1

Arnold ("Defendant") for unauthorized reception of Plaintiff's

satellite signal. The Court's Clerk entered default on January

10, 2005, prior to which Defendant had not filed any sort of

pleading or response to the complaint. Following entry of

default, Defendant filed an ex parte Motion to set aside the

default, which is now before this Court. Defendant also filed a

proposed Answer. Plaintiff objects to the Motion on the ground

that there is no basis for Defendant to file a motion ex parte. 

Plaintiff's Objections to Motion at 1.

Case 3:04-cv-03493-EDL Document 20 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 4
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 "The 'good cause' standard that governs vacating an entry of

default under Rule 55(c) is the same standard that governs vacating

a default judgment under Rule 60(b)." Franchise Holding, 375 F.3d

at 925. "While a default judgment may be vacated only by

satisfying the stricter standards applied to final, appealable

orders under Rule 60(b), an entry of default may be set aside for

'good cause shown.'" Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Bernal, 223 B.R.

542, 547 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1998). Therefore, while the same three

factors are considered whether a party moves to set aside entry of

default or a default judgment, a party seeking to set aside the

former, as Defendant seeks here, need satisfy a lesser standard. 

Since the standard required here is the lesser one, supporting

citations in this Order are drawn from cases involving both motions

to set aside entries of default as well as motions to set aside

default judgments.

2

Under Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

"[f]or good cause shown, the court may set aside an entry of

default." A court must consider three factors in deciding whether

good cause has been shown: 1) whether the defendant engaged in

culpable conduct that led to the default, 2) whether the defendant

had a meritorious defense, and 3) whether reopening the default

judgment [or entry] would prejudice the other side.2 Franchise

Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d

922, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2004). Defendant bears "the burden of

showing that any of these factors [favors] setting aside the

default." Id. However, "[a]s these factors are disjunctive, the

district court [is] free to deny the motion if any of the three

factors [is] true." Id. (internal citations and quotations

omitted). Therefore, this Court will consider each of these

factors in turn.

With respect to the first factor, "culpability involves not

simply nonappearance following receipt of notice of the action,

but rather conduct which hindered judicial proceedings ...." TCI

Case 3:04-cv-03493-EDL Document 20 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 4
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

Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 698 (9th Cir.

2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The TCI Group

court noted that culpable conduct involves an intentional failure

to file an answer. Id. at 697. The Court finds that in the

instant matter Defendant did not intentionally fail to file an

answer. For example, Defendant asserts that he did not think he

was the named defendant due to the misspelling of his name. 

Motion at 2. Defendant also alleges that he has never heard of

"White Viper," the entity which allegedly sold a Pirate Access

Device to Defendant. Id. Finally, Defendant implies that he did

not originally understand the seriousness of the matter. Id.

Based on these statements, the Court finds that Defendant has not

engaged in culpable conduct which would preclude vacation of the

entry of default.

With respect to the second factor, Defendant asserts that

"all of the allegations of the complaint fail to state a claim

against Arnold upon which relief may be granted." Id. at 4. 

While such conclusory statements are far short of those needed to

succeed in a motion to dismiss, the Court finds these assertions

to be sufficient to grant the Motion at hand.

Finally, the Court turns to the third factor. Here,

Defendant has come forward before default judgment has been

granted and seeks to set aside only the Clerk's entry of default. 

Furthermore, while Plaintiff has objected to the Motion now before

the Court because it was filed "ex parte," Plaintiff has not

raised any other significant objections. Considering these

factors, and given the less stringent standard needed to set aside

Case 3:04-cv-03493-EDL Document 20 Filed 05/23/05 Page 3 of 4
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 4

an entry of default, the Court holds that it would not prejudice

Plaintiff to set aside the entry of default.

The Court notes that Defendant labeled this Motion "ex

parte." Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Motion but

did file objections to the ex parte nature of the Motion. The

record does not indicate that the Motion was served on Plaintiff. 

However, Plaintiff's objections were filed on the very day that

the Motion was presented to the Court, and Defendant describes the

existence of ongoing negotiations with Plaintiff. Motion at 1. 

Therefore, whatever the circumstances surrounding the filing of

the Motion at hand, the Court reminds the parties that all motions

should be properly filed and served on all parties in accord with

the Local Rules. 

For the reasons stated above, the Court holds that Defendant

has met the standard for setting aside a default described in

Franchise Holding II. Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS

Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default. The Court also

GRANTS Defendant leave to file his Answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23 , 2005

 /s/ Samuel Conti 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03493-EDL Document 20 Filed 05/23/05 Page 4 of 4