Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02347/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02347-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America
Defendant
Fortis Benefits Insurance Company
Defendant
Shauni Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAUNI WILLIAMS, No. CIV S-02-2347-DFL-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

BANK OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

On April 14, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Bank of America

as a defendant. Following dismissal of defendant Fortis Benefits Insurance Company on March

28, 2005, defendant Bank of America is the sole remaining defendant to this action. The

amended complaint appears to have been properly served, via certified mail, on June 24, 2004. 

United States Post Office records submitted to the court by plaintiff show that the amended

complaint was received by defendant Bank of America. To date, defendant Bank of America has

failed to respond to plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

On September 9, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against

defendant Bank of America. On August 9, 2005, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for default

without prejudice and ordered defendant Bank of America to show cause in writing, within 20

Case 2:02-cv-02347-DFL-CMK Document 50 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 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

2

days from the date of the order, why default judgment should not be entered against it. That

order was subsequently returned by the United States Post Office as undeliverable.. Upon

review of the court’s file, it appeared that the August 9, 2005, order was not sent to the address

shown on plaintiff’s service records. By order issued on September 9, 2005, defendant Bank of

America was re-served and granted additional time to respond to the court’s order to show cause. 

The court’s order was served on defendant Bank of America at the exact address shown on

plaintiff’s documents. The court’s September 9, 2005, order was also returned as undeliverable

because the post office box has been closed. 

Upon contacting Bank of America’s customer service department, the court’s

staff was informed that a different address is used for all legal notices to Bank of America. On

October 20, 2005, the court directed re-service of the August 9, 2005, and September 9, 2005,

orders to defendant Bank of America at the address provided to court staff. The court directed

defendant Bank of America to respond to the court’s orders to show cause within 30 days of the

date of service of the October 20, 2005, order. Defendant Bank of America filed a letter

response to the court’s orders to show cause on November 29, 2005.

In its response, defendant Bank of America first asserts that plaintiff has failed to

properly effectuate service of process pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Defendant Bank of America argues that entry of default judgment is improper because this court

lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Defendant Bank of America also argues that it should be

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because plaintiff failed to effectuate

proper service within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. Finally, defendant Bank of

America argues that, on the merits of plaintiff’s claim against it, the bank is not a proper party.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:02-cv-02347-DFL-CMK Document 50 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 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

The court expresses no opinion as to whether defendant Bank of America’s

1

failure to plead or otherwise defend results in a waiver of any defenses. 

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides as follows:

When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is

sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules

and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall

enter the party’s default.

In this case, the issue before the court is whether entry of default is appropriate because

defendant Bank of America has failed to “plead or otherwise defend” as provided by the rules. 

A defendant may attack the court’s jurisdiction over him by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), by raising the defense in an answer to the complaint

and moving to dismiss later, or by not appearing in the action at all, allowing the plaintiff to take

a default judgment, and then by collaterally attacking such judgement for lack of personal

jurisdiction. Defenses based on service must generally be raised within the time to answer the

complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Plaintiff has submitted documents showing that an agent

of defendant Bank of America signed for the certified mail delivery of plaintiff’s complaint on

June 24, 2004. The court’s records reflect that, to date, defendant Bank of America has not filed

a timely answer or motion under Rule 12. Therefore, the fact that the bank has “failed to plead

or otherwise defend” as provided by the rules is apparent. The Clerk of the Court will be

directed to enter defendant Bank of America’s default. 

1

Plaintiff is advised that, before judgment can be entered against defendant Bank

of America based on its default, plaintiff must file a motion for entry of default judgment

pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1) or (2), whichever is appropriate in

this case. Because no judgment by default can be entered until plaintiff files a motion under

Rule 55(b), and in the interest of managing the court’s docket, plaintiff will be required to seek

entry of default within a time certain. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order

may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Case 2:02-cv-02347-DFL-CMK Document 50 Filed 12/06/05 Page 3 of 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

4

Finally, the court will not consider any further filings by defendant Bank of

America except one of the following: (1) a motion for reconsideration of this order pursuant to

Eastern District of California Local Rule 72-303; (2) a motion to set aside default pursuant to

Rule 55(c); or (3) if default judgment has been entered, a motion for relief from judgment

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter defendant Bank of America’s

default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a); 

2. Plaintiff shall file a motion for entry of default judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) within 60 days of the date of service of this order; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve this order on Kristine K. Blanco, Esq.,

of the law firm of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, attorneys for defendant Bank of America at the following

address:

Kristine K. Blanco, Esq.

Seyfarth Shaw, LLP

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350

Sacramento, CA 95814

DATED: December 4, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02347-DFL-CMK Document 50 Filed 12/06/05 Page 4 of 4