Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00892/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00892-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Abdullah
Plaintiff
Louis A. Carlin
Defendant
Patricia A. Carlin
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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ABDULLAH,

2:06-CV-0892-MCE-KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LOUIS A. CARLIN, PATRICIA A.

CARLIN and DOES 1 - 50,

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through this motion, Defendant Louis A. Carlin (“Carlin”)

seeks to set aside the default entered against him on June 30,

2006. Carlin’s Motion is premised on his alleged mistake of fact

in presuming the Summons served in this matter was instead an

unrelated class action notice. As set forth below, Carlin’s

Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default is granted. 

1

Case 2:06-cv-00892-MCE -KJM Document 14 Filed 08/31/06 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

Carlin explains that as an insurance broker, he receives

notices of pending class action lawsuits regarding various

products on a regular basis. His practice with these notices is

to set them aside for review when time permits. On May 20, 2006,

one of his children accepted delivery of the letter containing

the Summons in the present matter. On June 28, 2006, Carlin

accepted service of a Summons on behalf of his wife and codefendant in this matter, Patricia Carlin. It was then that

Carlin was alerted to the existence of this litigation. Default

against Carlin was entered on June 30, 2006. Carlin promptly

obtained legal counsel and on August 2, 2006, this Motion to Set

Aside Entry of Default was filed. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) governs the setting

aside of an entry of default and states, in relevant part: “For

good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default....” 

The Ninth Circuit has indicated that a district court’s

discretion is “especially broad where ... it is entry of default

that is being set aside, rather than a default judgment.” 

Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir.

1986) (citation omitted); See also Brady v. United States, 211

F.3d 499, 504 (9th Cir. 2000). “Where timely relief is sought

from a default ... and the movant has a meritorious defense,

doubt, if any, should be resolved in favor of the motion to set

aside the default so that cases may be decided on their merits.”

Id. at 945-46 (citations and quotations omitted).

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00892-MCE -KJM Document 14 Filed 08/31/06 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

With this standard in mind and given the non-opposition by

Plaintiff Abdullah, the Court finds that Carlin’s mistaken belief

constitutes sufficient cause to set aside the entry of default. 

Good cause having been found, the entry of default shall be set

aside, and Carlin shall be accorded twenty (20) days from the

date of this Order to file a responsive pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00892-MCE -KJM Document 14 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 3