Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03506/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03506-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act

---

1

Case No. 13-CV-03506-LHK

ORDER

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

TOM VER LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORGANIC ALLIANCE, INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.13-CV-03506-LHK 

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Attorney: Jason Klinowsky. 

Also present was Alexandro Rodriguez, President of Tom Ver LLC.

Defendant Parker Booth did not appear

The Court held a bench trial at 9 a.m. on August 17, 2015, pursuant to its original case 

schedule set forth in the Court’s April 30, 2014 case management order. See ECF No. 76. 

Defendant Parker Booth was not present at 9:00 a.m. After waiting over an hour to see if 

Defendant Booth would make an appearance, the Court ordered that Defendant Booth’s answer be 

stricken, and the Court directed the Clerk of Court to enter default against Defendant Booth. The 

Court vacated the trial at 10:15 a.m., at which time Defendant Booth had still not made an 

appearance.

More specifically, the Court noted on the record that in the sixteen months since the Court 

originally set this August 17, 2015 trial date, Defendant Booth filed an answer containing 

affirmative defenses, but otherwise failed to appear at the September 3, 2014 case management 

conference, ECF No. 90; the March 11, 2015 case management conference, ECF No. 105; the 

May 21, 2015 case management conference, ECF No. 128; or the pretrial conference on July 30, 

Case 5:13-cv-03506-LHK Document 149 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 13-CV-03506-LHK

ORDER

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

2015, ECF No. 143. 

Defendant Booth also failed to comply with the Court’s June 17, 2015 order directing the 

parties to file a joint pretrial statement, despite being contacted numerous times by Plaintiff Tom 

Ver LLC. See ECF Nos. 135, 137. Defendant Booth also failed to confirm his participation in

Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins’s July 28, 2015 settlement conference, despite a court order 

to do so. ECF No. 140. The Court had referred the parties to a settlement conference with 

Magistrate Judge Cousins, and Defendant Booth failed to respond, failed to appear, and failed to 

participate in the settlement conference.

Based on the long history of this case, Defendant’s willful failure to appear at trial, and 

Defendant’s inexcusable failure to participate or otherwise defend himself in this action since May 

2014, the Court found that Defendant Booth’s failure to appear for trial warranted the striking of 

his answer and the entry of default against him. As the Ninth Circuit explained in Al-Torki v. 

Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384–85 (9th Cir. 1996), “Failure to appear for trial, without excuse, 

prejudices an adversary and interferes with the court’s docket about as much as any procedural 

default can. The other side is likely to have spent thousands of dollars getting its lawyers ready to 

try the case and arranging for witnesses and exhibits to be available. If the trial does not proceed, 

the money and effort will have been wasted. The judge is likely to have gone to considerable 

trouble to clear out time from criminal cases, motion hearings, work in chambers, and other 

matters, for the civil trial.” Accordingly, it is within the inherent power of the court to enter default 

against a non-defending party and also to strike an answer and enter default. See id.; see also 

TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 916 (9th Cir. 1987).

The Court therefore exercised its discretion and inherent authority to strike Defendant 

Parker Booth’s answer containing affirmative defenses for failure to appear and defend at trial. 

Moreover, as Defendant Booth had been aware of the trial date for over 16 months and had failed 

to appear or confirm his appearance at five separate court proceedings, the Court directed the 

Clerk of Court to enter default against Defendant Booth for failure to otherwise defend this action 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. 

In addition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file any motion for default judgment against 

Defendant Parker Booth by August 24, 2015. Plaintiff shall cite the factors laid out in Eitel v. 

McKool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986), and present authority and argument for the entry of 

default judgment. Plaintiff shall also provide appropriate notice to Defendant Booth of its motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03506-LHK Document 149 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 2