Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02210/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02210-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1
Defendant
Gwendolyn Creer
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GWENDOLYN CREER, No. 2:09-cv-02210-MCE-KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT 

PLAN NO. 1,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), presently

before the Court Defendant AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1

(“Defendant”) moves to set aside the default entered against it

by the Clerk on October 27, 2009. Defendant also moves to

dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff Gwendolyn Creer (“Plaintiff”)

for insufficient service of process and lack of personal

jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(5) and 12(b)(2) respectively. For the reasons set forth

below, Defendant’s Motions are granted in part and denied in

part.

Case 2:09-cv-02210-MCE -CKD Document 25 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 4
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

BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against

Defendant under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,

29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B) (“ERISA”). Plaintiff seeks recovery of

denied long-tern disability benefits under the Plan.

Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant on September 1, 2009

by mailing the Summons and Complaint to the following address

listed on Defendant’s 2006 IRS form 5500:

President

AT&T, Inc.

175 E. Houston 8-Q-6

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Defendant asserts that this address is outdated and wrong for

service of process. Instead, Defendant alleges that the 2006

Plan documents pertinent to Plaintiff indicated the following

address for Defendant and its agent for service of process:

AT&T, Inc.

P.O. Box 29690

San Antonio, Texas 78229

Defendant states that use of this address would have properly

forwarded service to its current location. 

Furthermore, Defendant states that the Plan documents in

effect at the time Plaintiff filed her complaint indicated the

following address for service in process:

AT&T, Inc.

P.O. Box 29690

San Antonio, Texas 78229

Because Plaintiff sent service to the Houston street address,

Defendant claims it did not have timely notice that service had

been attempted on it. 

Case 2:09-cv-02210-MCE -CKD Document 25 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff claims however that the address used did

effectuate proper service. To support their claim, Plaintiff

provides a copy of a Return Receipt for the Summons and Complaint

signed by an “Albert Alonzo”. Defendant asserts that it has no

record of an employee, either former or current, named Albert

Alonzo.

On October 27, 2009 an entry of default was entered against

Defendant due to failure to respond to the complaint. Defendant

states that it was not until the next day, October 28, 2009, that

Christine Holland, Associate Director of Benefits, received the

Summons and Complaint at her office in Dallas, Texas. 

ANALYSIS

As a general rule, default judgments are ordinarily

disfavored. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir.

1986). Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever

reasonably possible. Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770

F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) allows a court to set

aside the entry of default “for good cause shown.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(c); TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696

(9th Cir. 2001). A court’s discretion in granting such relief is

especially broad when it is considering an entry of default

rather than a default judgment. O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 27

F.3d 357, 364 (9th Cir. 1994).

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02210-MCE -CKD Document 25 Filed 01/19/10 Page 3 of 4
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). 

4

It is clear that there was simply confusion among the

parties regarding the proper address for service. The Motion to

set aside the default is granted on the grounds that service was

improper. However, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

based on improper service is denied in light of the confusion and

the fact this Court is setting aside the default and allowing

service to be effectuated.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Set

Aside the Default (Docket No. 10) is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss the Complaint (Docket No. 10) is DENIED. The Clerk’s 1

office is directed to set aside the default entered against

Defendant on October 27, 2009. 

Plaintiff may effectuate service not later than twenty (20)

days after the date this Memorandum and Order is filed

electronically. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 15, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02210-MCE -CKD Document 25 Filed 01/19/10 Page 4 of 4