Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01042/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

1 11cv1042-BTM (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS A. HOROWITZ,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv1042-BTM (CAB)

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR ENTRY

v. OF DEFAULT

BISHOP, WHITE, MARSHALL &

WEIBEL, P.S., et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff requests an entry of default against Defendant. Because “‘[w]henever it is

reasonably possible, cases should be decided upon their merits[,] . . . any doubts as to the

propriety of a default are usually resolved against the party seeking a default judgment.”

Vongrabe v. Sprint PCS, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1318-1319 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (quoting

Patapoff v. Vollstedt's, Inc., 267 F.2d 863, 865 (9th Cir. 1959)).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) instructs the clerk to enter default only when a party “has failed

to plead or otherwise defend” an action. “Acts that show an intent to defend have frequently

prevented a default even though not connected to any particular rule.” Notes of Advisory

Committee on 2007 Amendments. 

Here, Defendant is actively defending the case. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss

a few hours before the instant request for notice of entry of default. Because Defendant has

filed a responsive pleading and has appeared in this case, Plaintiff’s request for an entry of

default is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01042-BTM-CAB Document 11 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 1