Court Opinion

ID: 9651771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:40:44.240414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:39.851688
License: Public Domain

MEYERS, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring:
I add my concurrence because I believe this case to be a prime example of the problems which arise from the careless use of *700preprinted forms. It is my belief, based upon the limited record before the Panel, that Judge Bufford did not intend to enter judgment in favor of the defendant, but rather only intended to deny plaintiffs request for a default judgment.5 The appeal would thus have been dismissed as interlocutory.
Unfortunately, it appears that counsel for the plaintiff improperly completed the default judgment form. At the line reading “Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff (specify name):”, counsel for the plaintiff inserted the name of the defendant “JYTJNG SIG LEE”! Due to counsel’s inadvertence, the Panel is compelled to find that Judge Bufford not only denied the request for default but also entered judgment in favor of Lee.
In a district with a great volume of cases, such as the Central District of California, forms can serve as a useful aide in processing common requests such as the entry of default. Counsel should be careful, however, not only to use the proper form, but also to use the form properly.
Having reluctantly concluded that this appeal is ripe for review, I concur fully with the opinion filed which reverses the “judgment” filed by the trial court.

. Had counsel for the plaintiff moved for reconsideration it would have given Judge Bufford an opportunity to clarify his ruling and provide the Panel with a more complete record.