Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01553/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01553-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONCEPCION FLORES MOLINA,

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff,

v.

LUPE C. FLORES,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01553-CDB

ORDER DENYING CROSS-PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Doc. 42)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM

(Doc. 48)

ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

Pending before the Court is Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff Concepcion Flores Molina’s 

(“Molina”) motion for default judgment against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Lupe C. Flores

(“Lupe Flores”). (Doc. 42). No oppositions to Molina’s motion was filed and the deadline to do 

so has expired.

Also before the Court is a filing by Lupe Flores titled “motion to appoint counsel and 

notice regarding diagnosis.” (Doc. 48). Having considered the moving papers, the Court 

construes the motion to be, more properly, a renewed motion for appointment of guardian ad 

litem.

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 49 Filed 09/05/24 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Molina’s Motion for Default Judgment

As a general rule, “default judgments are ordinarily disfavored,” as “[c]ases should be 

decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 

F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 20160 (quoting Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, default judgment is a two-step process. 

See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471. Prior to entry of default judgment, there must be an entry of default. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Upon entry of default, the factual allegations of the complaint, save for 

those concerning damages, are deemed to have been admitted by the defaulting party. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(b)(6); see Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). 

A district court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for default judgment. Aldabe v. 

Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); see TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 

915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Rule 55 gives the court considerable leeway as to what it may require 

as a prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment.”). The Ninth Circuit has set out seven factors 

to be considered by courts in reviewing a motion for default judgment: “(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. Entry of default judgment is not appropriate where the second and third factors 

weigh against plaintiff. See Mnatsakanyan v. Goldsmith & Hull APC, 2013 WL 10155707, *10 

(C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) (“The fact that factors two and three weigh against the entry of default 

judgment is particularly significant, as courts often treat these as the most important factors.”) 

(citing cases).

Molina’s motion for default judgment is deficient insofar as it fails to acknowledge Eitel 

or present any argument as to how the seven Eitel factors support entry of default judgment here. 

In addition, on August 26, 2024, Lupe Flores filed a document titled “response.” (Doc. 47). 

Upon review, the Court construes this as an answer to the cross-complaint, albeit late and 

potentially deficient. Nevertheless, in her “response,” Lupe Flores denies a key allegation 

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 49 Filed 09/05/24 Page 2 of 5
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

3

concerning her alleged undue influence in ascending to beneficiary status. Cf. (Doc. 47 at 1 with 

Doc. 9-1 ¶¶ 5-6, 25-30). Given the motion’s deficiencies and the existence of a dispute within the 

pleadings over material facts, Molina’s motion for default judgment will be denied without 

prejudice. E.g., Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986) (motion for default 

judgment properly denied when plaintiff failed to show prejudice from one defendant’s failure to 

comply strictly with time requirements); Krieg v. U.M.C. Hosp., 217 Fed. Appx. 604, 605 (9th

Cir. 2007) (affirming district court’s denial of entry of default judgment given existence of 

disputes over material facts) (unpub.).

Lupe Flores’ Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

On March 25, 2024, Lupe Flores filed a motion for appointment of guardian ad litem. 

(Doc. 31). On April 19, 2024, the Court denied the motion without prejudice on three grounds: 

(1) the motion failed to provide substantial evidence of incompetence; (2) the motion failed to 

show efforts to confer with Molina and indicate in the application whether Molina concurs or 

objects to the proposed appointment; and (3) the motion failed to identify potential candidates 

willing to be appointed as guardian ad litem and include their sworn attestations that they did not 

have conflicts of interest, as required by Local Rule 202. (See Doc. 33). On July 8, 2025, Lupe 

Flores filed a renewed motion for appointment of guardian ad litem. (Doc. 39). On August 1, 

2024, the Court denied the renewed motion without prejudice on the grounds that points (2) and 

(3) above still had not been remedied.

On August 26, 2024, Lupe Flores filed her renewed motion for appointment of guardian 

ad litem. (Doc. 48). The Court finds that the new motion has not remedied the deficiencies of the 

prior motion, namely points (2) and (3) above. The renewed motion for appointment of guardian 

ad litem is therefore will be denied without prejudice.

The Court reiterates that any motion for appointment of guardian ad litem must 

comply with Local Rule 202, meaning it must include signed declarations from individuals 

willing to be appointed guardian ad litem. These declarations must demonstrate that the 

proposed guardian ad litem/declarant does not have any conflicts of interest with Lupe 

Flores and otherwise is qualified to serve in such capacity.

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 49 Filed 09/05/24 Page 3 of 5
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

4

The Court also reiterates that, prior to filing a renewed motion for appointment of 

guardian ad litem, Lupe Flores must confer with Molina about whether Molina concurs or 

objects to the proposed guardian ad litem appointment. The date, time, manner, and 

content of this conference must be included in the motion for appointment of guardian ad 

litem.

Mandatory Status Conference

The Court sets the case for mandatory status conference on October 23, 2024. The Court 

invites Lupe Flores’ power of attorney, Dawn M. Harris, to appear. The Court also invites 

the parties to meet and confer in case of a scheduling conflict or unavailability on the date of the 

conference, and thereafter propose modified dates on which all parties, Lupe Flores’s power of 

attorney, and any relevant witnesses to the issue of Lupe Flores’ claimed incompetence are 

available. 

The Court will entertain a renewed motion for appointment of guardian ad litem filed 

prior the conference. Any such motion must comply with Local Rule 202 and include 

declarations as set forth above. Additionally, if a renewed application for appointment of 

guardian ad litem is filed prior to the status conference, the proposed guardian ad litem must 

appear at the conference, as should any medical providers that can answer the Court’s 

questions regarding Lupe Flores’ proffered medical condition, so as to be informed regarding any 

incompetency determination.

Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Molina’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 42) is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE;

2. Lupe Flores’ renewed motion for appointment of guardian ad litem (Doc. 48) is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

///

///

///

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 49 Filed 09/05/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. The parties and any relevant witnesses shall appear for status conference on October 

23, 2024, at 10:00a.m. The parties shall appear at the conference remotely via Zoom 

video conference, and counsel may obtain the Zoom ID and password from the 

Courtroom Deputy (Cori Boren, cboren@caed.uscourts.gov) prior to the conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 49 Filed 09/05/24 Page 5 of 5