Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00375/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00375-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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 - 11CV375

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY PAULINE RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV375 JLS (WVG)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

VACATE DEFAULT AND (2)

DISMISSING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 15 & 18.)

vs.

MARTEN TRANSPORT SERVICES, LTD,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Defendant Marten Transport Services, LTD’s motion to

vacate clerks entry of default, (ECF No. 18), and Plaintiff Mary Rivera’s motion for entry of

default judgment, (ECF No. 15). After consideration, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to

vacate the clerks entry of default and DISMISSES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for entry of

default judgment. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint on March 24, 2011. (ECF No. 4.) On May 13,

2011, the clerk of court entered default against Defendant. (ECF No. 10.) Four days later,

Defendant filed its answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 11.) Defendant then filed the present

motion to set aside default, (ECF No. 15), and Plaintiff responded with a motion for entry of

default judgment, (ECF No. 18). 

Case 3:11-cv-00375-JLS-WVG Document 28 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 3
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 - 11CV375

DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for

good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). The good cause analysis consists of three factors: (1) whether

the defendant’s culpable conduct led to the default; (2) whether defendant has a meritorious

defense; and (3) whether plaintiff will be prejudiced by setting aside the entry of default. TCI Grp.

Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001). These are the same factors as those

used when determining whether to set aside a default judgment. But when applying them in this

context, the Court’s discretion is “especially broad.” O’Connor v. Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 364 (9th

Cir. 1994) (internal citations omitted). The Court discusses each factor in turn. 

1. Defendant’s Culpable Conduct

“There is a two prong analysis in determining whether the defendant’s culpable conduct

led to the default. A defendant’s conduct is culpable if he or she has received actual or

constructive notice of the filing of the action and if he or she intentionally failed to answer.” 

Moody v. Finander, 2010 WL 5535703, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010). 

The Court finds that Defendant did not intentionally fail to answer because Defendant was

not properly served with process. To properly effectuate process, a defendant or its agent must be

given a copy of the summons and of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). Although the docket

indicates that summons was returned executed, a defendant may rebut the validity of service by

showing with clear and convincing evidence that it was not actually served. S.E.C. v. Internet

Solutions for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th Cir. 2007).

The proof of service was docketed indicating that summons was served on Margaret

Wilson. (ECF No. 5.) Margaret Wilson declared under penalty of perjury that, while she was

served with a complaint, she was never served with a document entitled “First Amended

Complaint Summons in a Civil Action.” (Wilson Decl. ¶ 3–4, ECF No. 15-2.) Moreover, CT

Corporation, the company registered to receive service on behalf of Defendant—the company that

Margaret Wilson works for—has no record of being served with the summons. (Flores Decl.

¶ 4–5, ECF No. 15-3.) Without service of the summons, the Court finds that Defendant was not

culpable for the default. 

Case 3:11-cv-00375-JLS-WVG Document 28 Filed 07/08/11 Page 2 of 3
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 - 11CV375

2. Whether Defendant Has a Meritorious Defense

“A defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment must present specific facts that would

constitute a defense.” TCI Grp. Life Ins., 244 F.3d at 700. The defendant need only demonstrate

facts or law showing that a “sufficient defense is assertable.” In re Stone, 588 F.2d 1316, 1319 n.

2 (10th Cir. 1978). Defendant here points to several affirmative defenses, (Answer 5–9), and

provides a factual basis for disputing Plaintiff’s libel and interference claims, (Peterson Decl.

¶ 5–8, ECF No. 15-4). Based on these allegations, the Court finds that Defendant has a

meritorious defense. 

3. Whether Setting Aside Default Would Prejudice the Plaintiff

To determine prejudice, the Court looks at whether plaintiff’s ability to pursue her claim

will be hindered. TCI Grp. Life Ins., 244 F.3d at 701. This hindrance must be a tangible harm

such as loss of evidence, increased difficulties of discovery, or greater opportunity for fraud or

collusion. Id. Plaintiff argues that setting aside the default would prejudice her because she has

“less law experience than Marten Transport Services attorneys [sic]” and that it would “punish

[her] after [her] exact and laborious efforts to do everything correct [sic].” (Opp’n ¶ 6, ECF No.

22.) The Court notes, however, that being forced to litigate the case on the merits is not

prejudicial for the purposes of lifting an entry of default. See Moody, 2010 WL 5535703, at *4

(citing TCI Grp. Life Ins., 244 F.3d at 701). And without any evidence that Plaintiff would suffer

tangible harm, the Court finds that setting aside default would not prejudice the Plaintiff. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the above analysis, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to set aside default,

(ECF No. 15), and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment, (ECF

No. 18). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 8, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00375-JLS-WVG Document 28 Filed 07/08/11 Page 3 of 3