Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02347/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02347-5/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. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BANK OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

Currently pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff’s motion for entry of default

judgment (Doc. 52); (2) defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default (Docs. 54, 55, and 59). 

I. BACKGROUND

On April 14, 2003, plaintiff filed a first 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 was left as 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

Case 2:02-cv-02347-DFL-CMK Document 62 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 5
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

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

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 asserted that plaintiff had failed

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

Defendant Bank of America argued that entry of default judgment would be improper because

this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Defendant Bank of America also argued 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 argued that, on the merits of plaintiff’s claim against it, the bank is not a proper

Case 2:02-cv-02347-DFL-CMK Document 62 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

party.

On December 6, 2005, the court issued an order rejecting these arguments and

directing the Clerk of the Court to enter defendant Bank of America’s default pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Specifically, plaintiff 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 defendant Bank of America had not filed a timely

answer or motion under Rule 12. The fact that the bank had “failed to plead or otherwise

defend” as provided by the rules was apparent. The Clerk of the Court entered defendant Bank

of America’s default on December 6, 2005

II. DISCUSSION

The December 6, 2005, order advised plaintiff that default judgment could not be

entered until she first filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) for such relief. 

The order also stated that the court would not consider any filings from defendant Bank of

America except either a motion for reconsideration, a motion to set aside entry of default, or, if

default judgment has been entered, a motion for relief from judgment. Plaintiff has filed a

motion for entry of default judgment and defendant has filed a motion to set aside entry of

default. 

A. Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default

In its motion to set aside entry of default, defendant Bank of America states that it

is not the proper defendant to the this action, which is brought under ERISA. It states that

plaintiff needs to amend the complaint to name the correct defendant -- the BankAmerica Long

Term Disability Plan (“1998 Plan”). Defendant states that the 1998 Plan is prepared to answer

and defend an amended complaint which names it. Finally, defendant's counsel states that she

will accept service of any amended complaint on behalf of the 1998 Plan. 

/ / /

Case 2:02-cv-02347-DFL-CMK Document 62 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Essentially, defendant Bank of America's motion to set aside entry of default is

also its motion to dismiss because it is not the right defendant. Plaintiff's opposition does not

address the substance of this argument. Rather, she discusses the history of mailing her

complaint to Bank of America and argues that the change in which entity was in charge of the

plan was a ruse to confuse her and thwart her claim. Plaintiff, however, does not present any

evidence to support this conclusion. 

The court finds that dismissal of the first amended complaint is appropriate. 

Under ERISA, a plaintiff, such as the plaintiff in this case, who is seeking benefits under an

employee benefit plan must name the plan as a defendant. See Ford v. MCI Communications

Corp., 399 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, defendant Bank of America has informed the

court that the correct defendant is the 1998 Plan. The first amended complaint should be

dismissed with leave to amend to name the correct defendant. Because counsel for defendant

Bank of America has agreed to accept service of such a second amended complaint on behalf of

the 1998 Plan, a response should be due within a time certain following filing and service of the

second amended complaint. 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment

Because the court finds it appropriate that the Clerk’s entry of default be set aside

and that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiff’s motion for entry of default

judgment should be denied as moot. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Defendant Bank of America’s motion to set aside the Clerk’s default

entered on December 6, 2005, be granted;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment be denied as moot;

3. The first amended complaint be dismissed with leave to amend;

Case 2:02-cv-02347-DFL-CMK Document 62 Filed 05/11/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

4. Plaintiff be directed to file a second amended complaint which names as

defendant the BankAmerica Long Term Disability Plan (“1998 Plan”) and to serve her second

amended complaint by mail on:

Kristine K. Blanco, Esq.

Seyfarth Shaw, LLP

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350

Sacramento, CA 95814

5. Defendant be directed to respond to the first amended complaint within 30

days of the date of service thereof.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 10, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02347-DFL-CMK Document 62 Filed 05/11/06 Page 5 of 5