Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02298/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02298-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

– 1 – 15cv2298

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

MYBUSINESSLOAN.COM, LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-2298-BAS-JLB

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART 

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

DEFAULT;

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO 

STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE 

DEFENSES

v.

SUNDANCE FENCE & IRON LLC, a 

Texas limited liability company, 

BRETT AVENRIEP, an individual, 

and CASSANDRA AVENRIEP, an 

individual,

Defendants.

Plaintiff moves for Entry of Default against Defendants Sundance Fence & Iron 

LLC and Brett Avenriep (collectively, “Defendants”) for their failure to obtain 

counsel as ordered by the Court.1 (ECF No. 32.) Since Sundance Fence & Iron, LLC, 

cannot appear in federal court without a lawyer, and has failed to obtain counsel 

despite repeated orders of the Court, the Motion for Entry of Default against Sundance 

Fence & Iron, LLC is GRANTED. However, since Mr. Avenriep is an individual 

and appears to have elected to appear in pro per, the Court DENIES WITHOUT 

 

1 Defendant Cassandra Avenriep was voluntarily dismissed from this case on March 11, 2016.

(ECF No. 15.)

Case 3:15-cv-02298-BAS-JLB Document 53 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 15cv2298

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

PREJUDICE the Motion for Entry of Default with respect to Brett Avenriep. Mr. 

Avenriep is counseled that his continued failure to appear for court appearances is 

likely to result in his default as well.

Plaintiffs also move to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 31). 

Defendants have failed to respond to this motion despite the Court’s warning that a 

failure to respond would result in the Court’s granting of the Motion. Therefore, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On November 19, 2016 Jennifer Gjesvold filed a pro hoc vice application with 

this Court requesting permission to appear on behalf of Defendants in this case. (ECF 

No. 19.) The application noted that, in keeping with Local Rule 83.3, San Diego 

attorney Mark Bagula was designated as local counsel. On that basis, the Court 

approved the pro hoc vice application.

On April 6, 2016, Mark Bagula and his associate Rada Feldman moved to 

withdraw as local counsel for Defendants. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff opposed noting 

that this would leave Defendants without local counsel. (ECF No. 21.) The Court 

granted the Motion to withdraw and ordered Defendants to obtain new local counsel 

within 30 days or face possible default. (ECF No. 25.) Defendants failed to provide 

notice of local counsel within 30 days, and Defendants moved for entry of default. 

(ECF No. 32.) 

On June 27, 2016 the Court held an Order to Show Cause hearing and ordered 

that counsel Jennifer Gjesvold should be prepared to show cause why her pro hoc vice

application should not be withdrawn in light of her failure to associate local counsel. 

Brett Avenriep was ordered to show cause as to whether he should be required to 

proceed in pro per, if the pro hoc vice application was withdrawn.2 And Sundance 

Fence & Iron LLC was put on notice “that it will be facing an entry of default for 

 

2 Although this Order to Show Cause hearing ostensibly included Cassandra Avenriep, her 

voluntary dismissal from the case had already been effectuated on March 11, 2016. (ECF No. 15.)

Case 3:15-cv-02298-BAS-JLB Document 53 Filed 10/20/16 Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 15cv2298

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

failure to appear through an attorney if the pro hoc vice application is withdrawn and 

no attorney appears on its behalf.” (ECF No. 33.) 

At the hearing on June 27, the Court relieved Jennifer Gjesvold from 

representing the Defendants and gave Sundance Fence & Iron LLC 30 days to retain 

counsel and to respond to the Motion for Entry of Default. (ECF No. 41.) Mr. 

Avenriep, who appeared telephonically, was counseled that if Sundance Fence & Iron

LLC did not retain an attorney within 30 days, default would be entered against it. Id.; 

see also CivLR 83.3(k) (“[C]orporations, partnerships and other legal entities may 

appear in court only through an attorney.”); United States v. High Country 

Broadcasting Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting that a corporation may 

appear in federal court only through counsel). Mr. Avenriep was also clearly told that 

if he did not file a response to the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses, that Motion 

would be granted as well. (ECF No. 41.)

On August 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement, indicating that the 

parties had “agreed to a settlement in principle” but requesting additional time to 

finalize and execute the settlement agreements. (ECF No. 48.) On August 8, 2016, 

the Court ordered that a Joint Motion for Dismissal was due by September 2, 2016, or 

the parties were ordered to a settlement disposition conference in front of the 

Magistrate Judge on September 6, 2016, if the Joint Motion for Dismissal was not 

filed. (ECF No. 49.)

On September 6, 2016, the Defendants failed to appear as ordered for the 

settlement disposition conference. (ECF No. 50). The Court then continued the 

settlement disposition conference to October 11, 2016 and ordered the parties to 

attend. (ECF No. 51.) Once, again, Defendants failed to appear for the settlement 

disposition conference. (ECF No. 52.)

II. ANALYSIS

A. Default Against Sundance Fence & Iron LLC

The Court may issue any just orders, including dismissal or default judgment 

Case 3:15-cv-02298-BAS-JLB Document 53 Filed 10/20/16 Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 15cv2298

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

against a disobedient party, for failure to comply with the court’s pretrial orders. See 

TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 916 (9th Cir. 1987); Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(f), 37(b)(2)(A)(vi). This is not a decision to be taken lightly, and the Court must 

ensure the defendant’s due process rights are not violated. At the same time, however, 

these inherent powers are “necessary to enable the judiciary to function.” Id. at 916. 

In considering whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, 

relevant factors include: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 

defendants; (4) public policy favoring disposition of the case on its merits; and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions. In re Phenylpropandamine (PPA) Prods Liab.

Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

In this case, Defendants were notified first on May 9, 2016, that they must 

obtain local counsel within 30 days or face possible default. (ECF No. 25.) When no 

local counsel was forthcoming, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause and notified 

Sundance Fence & Iron LLC “that it will be facing an entry of default for failure to 

appear through an attorney if ... no attorney appears on its behalf.” (ECF No. 33.) At 

the hearing on June 27, the court once again informed Mr. Avenriep, who is alleged 

to be the sole member and registered agent of Sundance Fence & Iron LLC (Compl.

¶¶ 9-10), that if Sundance Fence & Iron LLC did not retain an attorney within 30 days, 

default would be entered against it. (ECF No. 41.) Since that time, the Magistrate 

Judge has made two attempts to get Mr. Avenriep to appear for settlement conferences 

but no one has appeared on behalf of either Defendant. (ECF Nos. 50, 52.) Mr. 

Avenriep has had ample notice for five months that the Court intended to issue a 

default if he failed to obtain a lawyer for Sundance Fence & Iron LLC.

Furthermore, at this point, both the Court’s interest in moving this case forward 

and the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation weigh in favor of 

entering default against Sundance Fence & Iron LLC. The Court has repeatedly 

attempted to get Mr. Avenriep’s attention, and can think of no alternative sanctions. 

Case 3:15-cv-02298-BAS-JLB Document 53 Filed 10/20/16 Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 15cv2298

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

Sundance Fence & Iron LLC is unrepresented. It cannot appear in court without a 

lawyer, and it appears no lawyer is likely to be forthcoming on its behalf. Although 

public policy favors disposition of the case on the merits and prejudice will ensue to 

Sundance Fence & Iron LLC, on balance, the Court concludes that Sundance Fence 

& Iron LLC has abandoned the case, and, therefore, entry of default is appropriate.

B. Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(C) directs that a failure to file opposing papers may 

constitute a consent to granting of the motion. A respondent’s failure to follow a 

district court’s local rules is a proper ground for granting the motion. See Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Although pleadings by pro se litigants are 

construed liberally, those litigants are still bound by the Court’s rules of procedure. 

Id. at 54. 

In this case, Mr. Avenriep failed to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike 

Affirmative Defenses. The Court gave Mr. Avenriep additional time and warned him 

that if he did not respond, the Court would grant the motion. (ECF No. 41.) 

Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the Motion and agrees the conclusory affirmative 

defenses give plaintiff insufficient notice of the grounds for the defenses. Therefore, 

the Motion to Strike Affirmatives Defenses is GRANTED. 

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED IN PART. 

The Clerk is directed to enter default against Defendant Sundance Fence & Iron, LLC. 

The Motion is DENIED IN PART to the extent it requests entry of default against 

Brett Avenriep. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 20, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02298-BAS-JLB Document 53 Filed 10/20/16 Page 5 of 5