Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00297/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00297-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales

---

– 1 –

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,

Case No. 19-cv-297-BAS-AGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

v. [ECF No. 25]

GONOW TRAVEL CLUB, LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendant GoNow Travel Club, LLC’s Motion 

to Set Aside Default. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff Anton Ewing opposes the 

Motion. (ECF No. 27.) The Court finds this Motion suitable for determination on 

the papers and without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated 

below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Francisco Morgan and GoNow 

Travel Club, LLC (“GoNow”). (ECF No. 1.) Both Defendants filed a joint motion 

to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff then timely filed a first amended complaint, (ECF 

No. 7), so the Court terminated the motion to dismiss as moot. Francisco Morgan 

filed a motion to dismiss, but GoNow did not join the motion. (ECF No. 9.) Because 

GoNow had failed to respond to the first amended complaint, Plaintiff requested and

Case 3:19-cv-00297-BAS-AGS Document 29 Filed 06/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 –

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

received a clerk’s entry of default against GoNow. (ECF No. 14.) GoNow seeks to 

set aside the default.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Obtaining a default judgment is a two-step process governed by Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 55. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). First, 

Rule 55(a) provides: “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.” Second, after the clerk enters 

default, a party must seek entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b). The decision 

whether or not to grant default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) is within 

the discretion of district courts. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.

1980). In exercising its discretion to grant or deny a motion for default judgment, 

the Court considers the following factors:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the 

merits of plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency 

of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the 

action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material 

facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; 

and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. “[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). 

III. ANALYSIS

The Court finds the Eitel factors weigh in favor of setting aside the entry of 

default. First, the Court finds no prejudice to Plaintiff in allowing this case to 

proceed. This case is still in the early stages of litigation and the Court has not yet 

ruled on the motion to dismiss filed by the other Defendant in this case. Contra 

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (noting 

this factor weighs in favor of default if the plaintiff “will likely be without other 

Case 3:19-cv-00297-BAS-AGS Document 29 Filed 06/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 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

27

28

recourse for recovery” without a default judgment). Once GoNow files an answer or 

a motion to dismiss, the case can proceed on the merits.

Further and importantly, the Court finds no evidence of bad faith in 

Defendant’s failure to file an answer. Defense counsel apparently was unaware of 

the federal rules as they relate to responding to a complaint, because he states in the 

past, “opposing attorneys have not required him to file a separate answer for multiple 

defendants while initial motions/demurrers were pending in the case.” (Mot. 5.) As 

counsel now knows, all defendants must respond to a complaint within the time limits 

set forth by the federal rules. But the Court does not find that counsel’s failure to file 

an answer for GoNow was an attempt to manipulate the legal system or take 

advantage of Plaintiff. See TCI Grp. Line Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 697–

98 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Neglectful failure to answer as to which the defendant offers a 

credible, good faith explanation negating any intention to take advantage of the 

opposing party, interfere with judicial decisionmaking, or otherwise manipulate the 

legal process is not ‘intentional’ under our default cases, and is therefore not 

necessarily . . . culpable or inexcusable.”). Defendant’s mistake is not inexcusable 

and does not weigh in favor of the extreme measure of judgment by default. 

Further, the Court favors a decision on the merits. See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472 

(holding default judgments generally are disfavored because “cases should be 

decided on their merits whenever reasonably possible”). GoNow intends to move 

to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint and it states it has many meritorious defensesit hopes 

to present. (Mot. 10.) The Court therefore will be able to evaluate the merits of 

Plaintiff’s case against both Defendants. This factor weighs against entry of default.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00297-BAS-AGS Document 29 Filed 06/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 –

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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Eitel factors weigh in favor of setting aside the 

default against GoNow. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. (ECF No. 25.) 

GoNow SHALL answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint on or before 

July 9, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 18, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00297-BAS-AGS Document 29 Filed 06/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4