Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02024/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02024-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

15cv2024 AJB (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 

RAFAEL FLORES, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT et 

al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15cv2024 AJB (RBB) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

[ECF NO. 44] 

 On January 5, 2017, Counterclaimants City of San Diego and John Sullivan (the 

“Counterclaimants”) filed a “Request for Entry of Default of Counter-Defendant Rafael 

Flores as to Any and All Counterclaims Asserted by Counterclaimants City of San Diego 

and Officer John Sullivan” (the “Motion for Default”) [ECF No. 44]. No opposition to or 

reply in support of the Motion for Default was filed. For the reasons discussed below, the 

Motion for Default [ECF No. 44] should be GRANTED, and the Clerk of Court should 

enter a default against Plaintiff as to the Counterclaims. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff Rafael Flores filed his lawsuit against several Defendants on September 

10, 2015 [ECF No. 1]. On November 25, 2015, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss 

or for a More Definite Statement [ECF No. 16]. The Court issued a Report and 

Case 3:15-cv-02024-AJB-RBB Document 52 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

15cv2024 AJB (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

Recommendation granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion [ECF No. 29], 

which was adopted by United States District Court Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on August 

22, 2016 [ECF No. 31]. On October 24, 2016, Defendants filed a document entitled, 

“Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 

1983; Counterclaims of Counterclaimant City of San Diego and Officer Sullivan; and 

Attached Exhibit A” (the “Counterclaims”) [ECF No. 32]. In this filing, 

Counterclaimants City of San Diego1

 and John Sullivan pleaded claims against Flores for 

negligent resisting arrest and assault and battery. (Defs.’ Answer Pl.’s Compl. & 

Countercls. 14-15, Oct. 24, 2016, ECF No. 32.)2

 They seek damages and other relief in 

connection with these claims. (Id. at 15-16.) 

 The Counterclaims were served on Plaintiff four separate times. First, they were 

mailed to Flores on October 24, 2016. (See id. Attach. #2 Certificate Serv. 2-3, Oct. 24, 

2016.) This pleading was again mailed to Plaintiff on November 17, 2016. (Certificate 

Serv. 2-3, Nov. 17, 2016, ECF No. 36.) The Counterclaims were then personally served 

on Flores while he was appearing in San Diego Superior Court on November 30, 2016. 

(Certificate Serv. 2-3, Nov. 30, 2016, ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff was again served by mail on 

December 7, 2016. (Certificate Serv. 3-4, Jan. 5, 2017, ECF No. 43.) Flores did not file 

a responsive pleading to the Counterclaims. On January 5, 2017, the Counterclaimants 

filed the Motion for Default [ECF No. 44]. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, “When a party against whom a 

judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that 

failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. 

                                               

1

 The City of San Diego was not a named Defendant in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See 

Compl. 1-2, ECF No. 1.) 

2

 The Court will cite to documents as paginated on the electronic case filing system. 

Case 3:15-cv-02024-AJB-RBB Document 52 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

15cv2024 AJB (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

R. Civ. P. 55(a). In most cases, however, a default does not automatically entitle a party 

to a default judgment. See 10 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice 

§ 55.10[1], at 55-14 (3d ed. 2017) (footnotes omitted) (“Rule 55 requires a two-step 

process. The first step, entry of default, is a ministerial matter performed by the clerk and 

is a prerequisite to a later default judgment.”). The clerk of the court must enter a default 

judgment “[i]f the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain 

by computation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1). “In all other cases, the party must apply to 

the court for a default judgment.” Id. (b)(2) 

Generally, “[i]f a defendant fails to respond to a complaint, default judgment may 

be entered on behalf of the plaintiff.” Fed. Mar. Comm’n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 

U.S. 743, 757 (2002) (citation omitted) (discussing the Federal Maritime Commission 

Rules of Practice and noting the similarity to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). 

Service of process must be properly completed before a default judgment may be entered. 

Jacobs v. Tenney, 316 F. Supp. 151, 165-66 (D. Del. 1970). But “default judgments are 

ordinarily disfavored.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). “Cases 

should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Id. (citing Pena v. 

Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

III. DISCUSSION 

In their Motion for Default, Counterclaimants contend that Plaintiff failed to 

defend the claims against him within the time required by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (Mot. Default 2, ECF No. 44 (citations omitted).) They served the 

Counterclaims on Flores both personally and by mail. (See id. at 3 (citations omitted).) 

The Counterclaimants further state that in a telephone conversation with defense counsel 

on December 7, 2016, Plaintiff acknowledged that he had been served with the 

Counterclaims and that he was required to respond by December 21, 2016. (Id. at 3-4 

Case 3:15-cv-02024-AJB-RBB Document 52 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

15cv2024 AJB (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

(citations omitted).)3

 The contents of this phone conversation were memorialized in a 

letter sent to Flores the same day. (Id. at 4 (citations omitted).) Counterclaimants 

indicate, however, that Flores failed to respond to the claims against him by December 

21, 2016. (Id. at 5.) As a result, they ask that a default be entered against Plaintiff “for 

failure to timely plead or otherwise defend against the Counterclaimants’ 

Counterclaims.” (Id.) 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(B) states that “[a] party must serve an 

answer to a counterclaim or crossclaim within 21 days after being served with the 

pleading that states the counterclaim or crossclaim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(B). Flores 

was properly served with the Counterclaims on four separate occasions [ECF Nos. 32, 36, 

37, 43]. Even if the Court were to use December 7, 2016, the last date Plaintiff was 

served, as the date of service, his deadline to respond to the Counterclaims was January 3, 

2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (“When a party may 

or must act within a specified time after being served and service is made under Rule 

5(b)(2)(C) (mail), (D) (leaving with the clerk), or (F) (other means consented to), 3 days 

are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).”). 

Flores has not filed any response to the Counterclaims. Nor has he made an 

appearance in this case since filing a notice of change of address on August 18, 2016 

[ECF No. 30]. Because Plaintiff did not respond to the Counterclaims by the deadline set 

forth by the federal rules, a default should be entered against him. See Cook v. Olathe 

Med. Ctr., Inc., Civil Action No. 10–2133–KHV, 2011 WL 1403176, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 

13, 2011) (internal citation omitted) (“Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), plaintiff had 21 days, 

or until February 1, 2011, to file an answer or otherwise respond to the counterclaim. 

Plaintiff did not do so. Because plaintiff has failed to plead or otherwise defend the 

counterclaim, [defendant] is entitled to an entry of default under Rule 55(a).”). 

                                               

3

 The Counterclaimants incorrectly state that December 21, 2016, was the deadline for 

Flores to respond to the Counterclaims. 

Case 3:15-cv-02024-AJB-RBB Document 52 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

15cv2024 AJB (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

 As a result, the Motion for Default [ECF No. 44] should be GRANTED, and the 

Clerk of Court should enter a default against Flores as to the Counterclaims. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

 For the reasons discussed, the Motion for Default [ECF No. 44] should be 

GRANTED. The Clerk of Court should enter a default against Plaintiff as to the 

Counterclaims. This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States 

District Court judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all 

parties on or before May 19, 2017. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed on 

or before June 2, 2017. 

 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 21, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-02024-AJB-RBB Document 52 Filed 04/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5