Ogundimo v. Steadfast Property & Development, No. 1:2009cv00231 - Document 106 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER On Plaintiff's 92 Motion For Default Judgment, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/23/2010. (Plaintiff Carlotta Ogundimos motion for default judgment against Defendant Steadfast Park West, L.P., is DENIED.)(Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CARLOTTA OGUNDIMO, 1:09-CV-00231-OWW-SKO Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 Steadfast Property & Development, et al, 13 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. 92) Defendant. 14 I. 15 16 INTRODUCTION On February 26, 2010, Plaintiff Carlotta Ogundimo moved for 17 default judgment against Defendant Steadfast Park West, L.P.1 18 According to Plaintiff, default judgment is appropriate because 19 Steadfast failed to submit certain documentation to Plaintiff by 20 February 17, 2010: During February 1, 2010 Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Judge Wanger ordered the Defendants to SUBMIT ALL DOCUMENTS due to the Plaintiffs by February 17, 2010 [...] 21 22 23 Defendants argued that Plaintiff did not send them papers but Plaintiff was not ordered by the court to give Defendants any papers. If the papers are Work Orders the Defendants council [sic] could have gotten them from his client himself. 24 25 26 27 1 28 Defendant Stadfast Park West, L.P., was erroneously sued as Steadfast Property & Development. 1 1 2 Therefore, it leaves no excuse for the Defendant not to have followed Judges Order of the Court. Plaintiffs move the court for a default judgment against Defendants Steadfast. 3 4 (Doc. 92, pg. 1) (emphasis in original). 5 Plaintiff s document is properly considered as a motion for 6 default judgment brought pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules 7 of Civil Procedure. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 10 Plaintiff Carlotta Ogundimo is proceeding pro se and in forma 11 pauperis with an action for damages and other relief concerning 12 alleged civil rights violations. According to the complaint, filed 13 February 5, 2009, Plaintiff and her minor children, who reside at 14 2655 West Alamos, Unit 118, Fresno, California, suffered housing 15 discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act ( FHA ). 16 On February 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a document entitled 17 Plaintiff's Motion To 18 Defendants. 19 grounds that Steadfast disobeyed a Court order requiring it to 20 submit work orders and other documentation to Plaintiff by February 21 17, 2010. (Doc. 92.) Move For Default Judgment Against Plaintiff seeks default judgment on 22 To obtain a default judgment under Rule 55 of Federal Rules of 23 Civil Procedure, a party must follow a sequential two-step process: 24 (1) obtain entry of default from the Clerk of the Court pursuant to 25 Rule 55(a); and (2) move the Court for a default judgment in 26 accordance with Rule 55(b). See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 27 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (discussing this two-step process). 28 55(a) states that [w]hen a party against whom a judgment for 2 Rule 1 affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise 2 defend [...] the clerk must enter the party's default. 3 Civ. P. 55(a). 4 court should, whenever possible, decide a case on the merits. 5 Cmty. Dental Serv. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff 6 Fed. R. Default judgment is generally disfavored, and a filed her motion for entry of default after 7 Defendant filed its Answer, which was filed on June 19, 2009. 8 (Doc. 31.) 9 Plaintiff's Defendant did not fail to plead, and therefore, subsequent motion default judgment is improper. 10 Moreover, Plaintiff did not comply with the procedural requirements 11 laid out in Rule 55. 12 from the Clerk of Court prior to moving for a default judgment. 13 Rather, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter default judgment against 14 Defendant Steadfast. 15 Rule 55. 16 is inappropriate and outside the scope of the federal rules of 17 civil procedure. Plaintiff failed to seek entry of default However, this is not the process detailed in A default or default judgment under these circumstances For these reasons, Plaintiff s motion is DENIED. 18 III. CONCLUSION 19 20 For the reasons stated: 21 (1) Plaintiff Carlotta Ogundimo s motion for default judgment 22 against Defendant Steadfast Park West, L.P., is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: aa70i8 April 23, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 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.