-JFM (PS) Slade v. California Public Employees' Retirement Service, No. 2:2011cv01180 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 06/30/11 RECOMMENDING that the 11 Motion for Default Judgment be denied; Objections to these F&Rs due w/i 20 days; referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
-JFM (PS) Slade v. California Public Employees' Retirement Service Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DONNA M. SLADE, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 No. CIV 2:11-cv-1180-MCE-JFM vs. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SERVICE, 14 Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. On June 20, 2011, plaintiff filed a 17 motion for default judgment. Plaintiff contends defendant failed to file a timely answer to the 18 May 3, 2011 complaint. 19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55 governs the entry of default by the clerk and 20 the subsequent entry of default judgment by either the clerk or the district court. In pertinent 21 part, Rule 55 provides: 22 23 (a) Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default. 24 (b) Entering a Default Judgment. 25 26 (1) By the Clerk. If the plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation, the clerk—on the plaintiff's request, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 with an affidavit showing the amount due—must enter judgment for that amount and costs against a defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an incompetent person. (2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment .... 4 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that Rule 55 requires a “two-step 5 process,” consisting of: (1) seeking the clerk’s entry of default, and (2) filing a motion for entry 6 of default judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir .1986) (“Eitel apparently 7 fails to understand the two-step process required by Rule 55.”); Symantec Corp. v. Global 8 Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting “the two-step process of ‘Entering a 9 Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’ ”). 10 In light of the requirement to obtain entry of default before seeking default 11 judgment, courts deny motions for default judgment where default has not been previously 12 entered. See, e.g., Marty v. Green, No. 2:10-cv-1823-KJM-KJN, 2011 WL 320303, at *3 (E.D. 13 Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) (“Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied because plaintiff did not 14 follow the procedural steps required to properly file a motion for default judgment. Specifically, 15 plaintiff failed to seek a clerk’s entry of default from the Clerk of Court prior to filing his motion 16 for default judgment.”); Norman v. Small, No. 09-cv-2233-WQH-NLS, 2010 WL 5173683, at *2 17 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2010) (denying plaintiff's motion for default judgment because “the clerk has 18 not entered default”); Bach v. Mason, 1901 F.R.D. 567, 574 (D. Idaho 1999) (“Plaintiffs have 19 improperly asked this court to enter a default judgment without first obtaining an entry of default 20 by the clerk. Since plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment is improper, it is denied.”). 21 In this case, plaintiff has not sought entry of default against defendant, and the 22 Clerk of Court has not entered default against the defendant in this case. Therefore, plaintiff has 23 not complied with the requirements of Rule 55. Without first obtaining an entry of default 24 against the defendant, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is improperly before this court. See 25 Bach, 190 F.R.D. at 574. 26 2 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 5 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised 8 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 9 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 DATED: June 30, 2011. 11 12 13 14 /014;slad1180.mdj 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.