Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01597/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01597-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank K Mubiru
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
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

FRANK K MUBIRU,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01597-SAB

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

RENEWED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

DEFAULT

(ECF No. 19, 20, 25)

On March 28, 2024, the Court issued an order to show cause to Plaintiff why monetary 

sanctions should not be imposed for frivolously filing multiple requests for entry of default 

despite the Court twice informing him that Defendant had answered and Plaintiff’s own

acknowledgment he is in receipt of that answer. (ECF No. 20.) 

On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion praying Court not to impose monetary 

sanctions for said frivolous filing,” which the Court construes as the required written response 

to the Court’s March 28, 2024 order to show cause. Therein, Plaintiff proffers his multiple 

filings were not intended to unduly overload the Court; rather, Plaintiff was attempting to bring 

the fact that he had not received an answer to the Court’s attention. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Plaintiff 

argues his renewed request for entry of default was made “in good faith” to notify the Court that 

Case 1:23-cv-01597-KES-SAB Document 27 Filed 04/05/24 Page 1 of 2
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

Defendant delivered its answer after the Court’s required deadline.1 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 

maintains his “motions requesting entry of default were in fact Plaintiff’s responses to two 

separate failures of Defendant to avail an answer as ordered twice by this honorable Court.” 

(Id. at 2.) 

Defendant complied with this Court’s orders in serving its answer. Plaintiff is in receipt 

of the answer and received adequate relief for Defendant’s clerical error. The Court shall 

discharge the order to show cause and this case will move forward without further frivolous 

filings. The Court shall deny Plaintiff’s frivolous renewed motion requesting entry of default 

(ECF No. 19) for the same reasons as those stated in the Court’s March 11, 2024 order denying 

the initial request for entry of default (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff is advised to be familiar with 

court procedures and the law. While Plaintiff’s conduct is not justified and does not accept 

Plaintiff’s rationale as to why the frivolous motions were filed, the Court will, nevertheless,

discharge the order to show cause.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order to show cause issued on March 

28, 2024, (ECF No. 20), is DISCHARGED and Plaintiff’s renewed motion for entry of default

(ECF No. 19), filed March 27, 2024, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The Court informed Plaintiff in its order to show cause that Defendant timely filed proof of service of its answer to 

Plaintiff’s correct address on March 20, 2024, prior to the March 21, 2024 deadline. (ECF No. 20 at 1 n.1.) Plaintiff 

appears to confuse the date the document was served with the date he received the document in the mail. (See ECF 

No. 17 at 2 (“On March 20, 2024, [Defendant] served true copies of...Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Answer 

to Frank K. Mubiru’s Complaint).)

Case 1:23-cv-01597-KES-SAB Document 27 Filed 04/05/24 Page 2 of 2