Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01597/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01597-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank K Mubiru
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Defendant

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK K MUBIRU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01597-SAB

ORDER RE MOTION TO CONTINUE 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

CONTINUING INITIAL SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE TO APRIL 25, 2024

MARCH 21, 2024 DEADLINE

(ECF No. 11)

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and having paid the filing fee, filed a 

motion requesting a change of conference date, which the Court construes a motion to continue 

the initial scheduling conference currently set for March 26, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9. 

(ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff contends the action “is not procedurally in the posture” to move forward 

with the mandatory scheduling conference on the scheduled date because (1) Defendant did not 

serve an answer to the complaint on the Plaintiff and (2) there is a pending motion requesting 

entry of default. (ECF No. 12 at 1-2.) 

The Court shall continue the scheduling conference, but not for the reasons proffered by 

Plaintiff. On March 11, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (ECF No. 

11) because Defendant filed a proof of service that shows a copy of the answer that was filed in 

this Court on February 27, 2024 (ECF No. 8) was mailed to Plaintiff on February 27, 2024 (ECF 

Case 1:23-cv-01597-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 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

2

No. 9). However, in reviewing the proof of service, it appears Defendant made a typographical 

error in Defendant’s mailing address, mailing the documents to “Darmouth Avenue” instead of 

“Dartmouth Avenue.” (ECF No. 9 at 2.) The Court is unaware if this error caused Plaintiff’s 

purported nonreceipt of the answer. 

Irrespective of the clerical error during service, Defendant timely answered the complaint 

and has expressed an intent to defend the action. See Bertram v. Heinzler, 2011 WL 3889719 

(E.D. Cal. 2011) (“While the Court may have been able to enter default against Defendants in 

this action, that entry of default would most likely have been set aside upon Defendants 

appearance and a showing of good cause.”) The Court notified Plaintiff as such in its March 11, 

2024 order denying his motion for entry of default. (ECF No. 11.) Given Plaintiff’s instant 

motion is dated four days after the Court’s motion denying the entry of default, Plaintiff is 

reminded he must be familiar with the orders issued by this Court when litigating his action. 

However, the Court is cognizant that the above-noted clerical error may have caused issues with 

service of the answer. The Court shall therefore order Defendant to re-serve its answer and will

continue the scheduling conference to allow the parties to adequately prepare a joint scheduling 

conference statement. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:23-cv-01597-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 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

3

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant shall re-serve a copy of its answer and notice of interested parties on 

Plaintiff at his correct address of record and shall provide the Court with a 

declaration indicating proof of service no later than March 21, 2024;

2. The Court shall continue the initial scheduling conference currently set for March 

26, 2024 to April 25, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9; and

3. The parties are reminded that they shall file a joint scheduling conference 

statement seven (7) days prior to the scheduling conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01597-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 3