Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01432/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01432-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0001 Establishment of PTO

---

1

19-CV-1432-CAB-WVG

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

MITEK SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

URBAN FT (NORTH AMERICA), LLC, 

aka URBAN FT, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-1432-CAB-WVG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND 

DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

[Doc. Nos. 29, 30]

Plaintiff Mitek Systems, Inc. filed its complaint in this action on July 31, 2019 [Doc. 

No. 1], and thereafter filed its first amended complaint (“FAC”) on August 15, 2019. [Doc. 

No. 8.] On September 25, 2019, Defendant Urban FT (North America), LLC, aka Urban 

FT, LLC filed its answer to the FAC. [Doc. No. 16.] On October 31, 2019, Defendant’s

previous counsel of record, Patrick D. Paschall, Esq., filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. 

[Doc. No. 18.] Due to the lack of any opposition, the Court granted the motion to withdraw 

as counsel on November 26, 2019. [Doc. No. 23.] The Court reminded Defendant that it 

cannot proceed without representation pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3(j) and instructed 

Defendant to obtain new counsel no later than December 17, 2019, otherwise Plaintiff may 

request entry of default against Defendant. [Id. at 2.] 

Case 3:19-cv-01432-CAB-DEB Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-CV-1432-CAB-WVG

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

Defendant failed to obtain new counsel by this deadline and Plaintiff requested entry 

of default on December 23, 2019 [Doc. No. 26], which the clerk entered on December 27, 

2019. [Doc. No. 27.] On January 24, 2020, Defendant moved to set aside the default [Doc. 

No. 29], and on January 27, 2020, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. [Doc. No. 30.] 

For the efficient administration of justice, and to save the parties the cost of unnecessary

briefing, the court finds it efficient to immediately address Defendant’s motion to set aside 

default.

A court may set aside a default for good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Factors 

to consider include whether defendant engaged in culpable conduct, whether defendant has 

a meritorious defense, and whether setting aside default will prejudice plaintiff. See 

Franchise Holding, II, LLC v. Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th 

Cir. 2004). The decision whether or not to grant default judgment is within the discretion 

of district courts. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). “All that is 

necessary to satisfy the ‘meritorious defense’ requirement is to allege sufficient facts that, 

if true, would constitute a defense.” United States v. Aguilar, 782 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (internal quotes omitted). “[J]udgment by default is a drastic step appropriate 

only in extreme circumstances; a case should, whenever possible, be decided on the 

merits.” Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984).

Here, the court has reviewed defendant’s motion (and supporting memorandum) and 

finds good cause to grant it. Defendant persuasively contends that it diligently attempted 

to obtain new counsel and once it came to an agreement of representation its counsel 

immediately began to prepare the motion to set aside default. Defendant also contends it 

has a meritorious defense to both the non-infringement and breach of contract claims. 

Furthermore, Defendant moved to set aside the default within thirty days of entry and the 

Court does not find this limited tardiness demonstrates extreme circumstances. Finally, 

the Court favors a decision on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (holding default judgments generally are disfavored because “cases should be 

decided on their merits whenever reasonably possible”).

Case 3:19-cv-01432-CAB-DEB Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-CV-1432-CAB-WVG

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

Defendant’s motion to set aside the entry of default [Doc. No. 29] is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is therefore DENIED. [Doc. No. 30.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01432-CAB-DEB Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3