Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04673/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04673-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard George
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD GEORGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 07-04673 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Motion for Default Judgment

On September 7, 2007 plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California in the

County of San Mateo alleging that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) violated certain provisions

of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). On September 11, 2007 defendant removed the action to this

court. Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment.

“A default judgment may be entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies

only if the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 55. This rule aims to protect the American taxpayer. Giampaoli v. Califano, 628 F.2d 1190,

1193–94 (9th Cir. 1980) (“This deference arose from recognition that the government was

sometimes slow to respond to a complaint and that the public fisc should be protected against

payment of unfounded claims solely because of a failure to respond timely”). Courts favor

government defendants who have failed to plead whenever there is any indication that the

government desires to respond to or defend the claim. See, e.g., Mason v. Lister, 562 F.2d 343, 345

(5th Cir. 1977).

Case 3:07-cv-04673-MHP Document 29 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

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

Here, the defendant United States of America was served on or around September 10, 2007. 

Their response to the complaint was due within sixty days. The government failed to respond within

sixty days. However, the government did not abandon the litigation. Indeed, it filed a motion to

dismiss on January 15, 2008. In light of the lenient standard set forth above, plaintiff’s motion for a

default judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2008

_______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-04673-MHP Document 29 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2