Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-02687/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-02687-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Intervise, Inc.
Defendant
Sam Melchner
Defendant
Andrei S. Melchner
Defendant
Peter V. Smilde
Plaintiff
Wireless Cable Services
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER V. SMILDE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAM MELCHNER, aka, ANDREI S.

MELCHNER, dba, WIRELESS CABLE

SERVICES AND INTERVISE, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 00-02687 CRB

ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING

ACTION FOR LACK OF

PROSECUTION

On February 15, 2002, the Court entered a default judgment in this action against

defendant Sam Melchner. Now pending before the Court is Melchner’s motion to set aside

the judgment on the ground that, through no fault of his own, he only recently learned of this

action and the subsequent judgment. After carefully considering Melchner’s papers and his

counsel’s declaration as to service on plaintiff, the Court concludes that oral argument is

unnecessary and GRANTS defendant’s motion.

DISCUSSION

“For good cause shown,” a court may set aside a judgment by default in accordance

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c); see also TCI Group Life

Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 60(b) a judgment may

be set aside in accordance with a motion made “in a reasonable time” if the judgment is void 

Case 3:00-cv-02687-CRB Document 58 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

or for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(4), (6). In considering whether “good cause” is shown, the court should consider (1)

whether the defendant’s culpable conduct led to the default, (2) whether the defendant has a

meritorious defense, and (3) and whether reopening the default judgment will prejudice the

plaintiff. TCI Group Life Ins. Plan, 244 F.3d at 696. 

Defendant has shown good cause. First, he has established that he did not receive

notice of the lawsuit even though he was conspicuously present in this district because

plaintiff served defendant at an outdated address. Defendant has also established that

plaintiff made misrepresentations to the Court in order to obtain the default judgment. 

Second, plaintiff has demonstrated that he has meritorious defenses to this action; namely,

that the action is barred by the statute of limitations and that Melchner cannot be held

personally liable. 

The Court is unable to concretely determine the third factor, whether plaintiff will be

prejudiced by vacating the judgment. Despite defendant’s diligent efforts at serving plaintiff,

plaintiff has not responded to the motion. Information obtained by a private investigator

hired by defendant suggests that plaintiff may have died in 2004. A collection agency,

however, attempted to collect on the judgment in January 2006. Defendant provided notice

of this motion to the collection agency, but it has not appeared or otherwise communicated

with the Court. Accordingly, this last factor does not weigh in favor of upholding the

judgment, especially in light of the misrepresentations made by plaintiff to obtain the

judgment in the first place.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:00-cv-02687-CRB Document 58 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2000\2687\order4.wpd 3

CONCLUSION

As defendant has shown good cause for vacating the default judgment, the judgment

entered on February 15, 2002 is SET ASIDE. In addition, as neither plaintiff nor any party

with an interest in the judgment has responded to the motion, this reopened action is

DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for a lack of prosecution. 

Defendant shall serve a copy of this order on the collection agency that brought the judgment

to his attention in the first instance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Nov. 29, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:00-cv-02687-CRB Document 58 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 3