Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00227-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMED LASHEEN,

NO. CIV. S-01-227 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

THE LOOMIS COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of the Embassy of the Arab Republic

of Egypt, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and the Embassy of Egypt

Cultural and Educational Bureau’s (collectively, “Egyptian

defendants”) response to the order to show cause, as well as

plaintiff Mohamed Lasheen and defendant Loomis Company’s replies

to that response. Previously, Lasheen and Loomis filed a joint

“special motion” regarding the inapplicability of the Foreign

Sovereign Immunities Act. The Egyptian defendants, who have

been in default since March 2, 2006, filed a request to continue

the hearing on the special motion so that they could submit an

Case 2:01-cv-00227-KJM-EFB Document 261 Filed 01/03/08 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

1

 For example, the Egyptian defendants argue that service was

improper but any argument as to the propriety of service was waived

long ago. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1).

2

opposition. The court continued the hearing but ordered the

Egyptian defendants to show cause why sanctions should not be

imposed for delay and inconvenience, and noted that they would

need to move to set aside the entry of default.

Under Rule 55, “[t]he court may set aside an entry of

default for good cause, and it may set aside a default judgment

under Rule 60(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Here, although judgment

has not yet been entered, the Egyptian defendants argue that the

grounds set forth in Rule 60(b)(1)-(3), (4) and (6) support

setting aside default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Many of these

grounds are clearly frivolous,1 but one is not. Under Rule

60(b)(4), the court may relieve a party from a judgment or order

if “the judgment is void.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). 

Furthermore, under this rule, “a litigant may attack a judgment

as void due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Wages v.

I.R.S., 915 F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Export

Group v. Reef Indus. Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Here, if judgment is entered against the Egyptian defendants,

they will have standing to argue that the judgment was void

because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act deprived the court

of subject matter jurisdiction.

Given that the joint motion brought by Lasheen and Loomis

deals with precisely this same Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Case 2:01-cv-00227-KJM-EFB Document 261 Filed 01/03/08 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

3

issue, it would be efficient to hear the Egyptian defendants’

arguments in the form of an opposition to the motion, rather

than in the form of a separate post-judgment motion. In

addition, doubt should generally “be resolved in favor of the

motion to set aside the [default] so that cases may be decided

on their merits.” Mendoza v. Wright Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d

941, 945 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotes omitted). 

Accordingly, the court finds that the Egyptian defendants have

standing to contest the joint motion. Nevertheless, the court

sets aside default only with respect to the Foreign Sovereign

Immunities Act issue; the Egyptian defendants have not

demonstrated good cause to set aside default as to any other

aspect of the case.

In light of the above, the court orders as follows:

1. The Egyptian defendants shall file an opposition to the

joint motion by January 14, 2008.

2. Lasheen and Loomis may file a single reply by January

22, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2008.

Case 2:01-cv-00227-KJM-EFB Document 261 Filed 01/03/08 Page 3 of 3