Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01554/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01554-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

3:17-cv-01554-GPC-RBB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTON EWING,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK MCCARTHY, a/k/a FLYNN 

MCCARTHY; BRYAN DAVID MINEY; 

SKY SIREWEST; DOES 1-10; ABC

CORPORATIONS 1-10; and XYZ, LLC's 

1-10,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01554-GPC-RBB

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF 

DEFAULT

[ECF No. 23]

On October 25, 2017, the Court entered an order denying Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. (ECF No. 22.) Under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4), Defendants were required to serve a pleading in 

response to Plaintiff’s complaint “within 14 days after notice” of the Court’s ruling on 

their motions to dismiss.

On November 13, 2017—19 days after the Court issued its ruling denying the 

motions to dismiss—Plaintiff filed a request with the Clerk of Court to issue an entry of 

default against the three named defendants in this case because none had filed a timely 

responsive pleading. (ECF No. 23.) The Clerk’s Office denied this request. (See id.) 

Case 3:17-cv-01554-GPC-RBB Document 29 Filed 12/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-01554-GPC-RBB

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

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s request should have been granted, however, because no 

defendant had filed a timely responsive pleading at the time of Plaintiff’s request. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

Yet, in the meantime, Defendants Mincey and McCarthy have filed separate 

answers to Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF Nos. 25, 27.) In light of the fact that Mincey and 

McCarthy are both appearing pro se, the Court finds good cause to excuse the 

untimeliness of their responsive pleadings. As a result, while default should have been 

entered against Defendants Mincey and McCarthy, the Court concludes that good cause 

would have been found to set aside the default against them had it been entered. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 55(c) (“The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause . . .”). The 

Court therefore accepts the answers filed by Defendants Mincey and McCarthy, and 

orders that default not be entered against them.

The third named defendant in this case, Defendant Sirewest, however, has not filed 

a responsive pleading. Because, as discussed above, the deadline to file a responsive 

pleading has passed, the Court respectfully requests the Clerk of Court to enter default 

against Defendant Sirewest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01554-GPC-RBB Document 29 Filed 12/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2