Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00023/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00023-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bob Fisher
Defendant
Inspection Management Systems, Inc.
Plaintiff
Open Door Inspections, Inc.
Defendant
Run Tangent, LLC
Defendant
Kevin Scheiderich
Defendant
Michael R. Scheiderich
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

INSPECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, No. 2:09-cv-00023-MCE-GGH

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ENTERING DEFAULT

OPEN DOOR INSPECTIONS, INC.,

MICHAEL R. SCHEIDERICH; KEVIN

SCHEIDERICH; BOB FISHER; RUN

TANGENT, LLC,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Presently before the Court is the Motion brought by

Plaintiff Inspection Management Systems, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) for

entry of default as to Defendants Open Door Inspections, Inc. and

Run Tangent, LLC (“Defendants”) on grounds that said Defendants

are corporate entities not represented by counsel as required by

Eastern District Local Rule 183(a). Plaintiff also requests that

the Court strike Defendants’ responsive pleadings given their

lack of proper legal representation.

///

Case 2:09-cv-00023-MCE -KJN Document 116 Filed 07/01/10 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

On April 14, 2010, when the Court granted defense counsel’s

Motion to Withdraw (Docket No. 107), it specifically advised

Defendants that they could only appear by an attorney. 

Thereafter, by Minute Order dated April 28, 2010, the Court

ordered that Defendants submit a further Status Report not later

than May 28, 2010 regarding the issue of their representation. 

Defendants failed to submit the required Status Report.

Thereafter, on May 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed the instant

Motion. To the extent the Motion seeks to strike the pleadings

already entered by Defendants, it fails because the pleadings at

issue were all filed while Defendants were indeed represented by

counsel. The Court may nonetheless enter default, as requested

by Plaintiff, for Defendants’ subsequent violation of the local

rule requiring corporate representation by an attorney. Employee

Painters’ Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, 480 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir.

2007). 

Here, not only does Local Rule 183(a) require such

representation, but the Court has repeatedly advised Defendants

to obtain such representation to no avail. Defendants failed to

respond to the Court’s Order requiring that a Status Report on

the issue be filed by May 28, 2010, and they further failed to

oppose this Motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a)

permits the entry of default not only where a party has failed to

enter an appearance, but also to the extent that party fails to

“otherwise defend”. Here, Defendants’ failure to retain counsel

or to respond to the Court’s inquiries and orders constitutes a

failure to defend upon which default may properly be premised.

///

Case 2:09-cv-00023-MCE -KJN Document 116 Filed 07/01/10 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

Given the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion

(Docket No. 110) to the extent it requests that default be

entered in its favor and against Defendants Open Door Inspection,

Inc. and Run Tangent, LLC. The Motion is, however, DENIED

insofar as it asks that all responsive pleadings be stricken.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00023-MCE -KJN Document 116 Filed 07/01/10 Page 3 of 3