Ewing v. LeadExcel, Inc

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 ANTON EWING, Case No.: 18cv2845-LAB (JLB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING RENEWED 13 v. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 14 LEADEXCEL, INC., et al., 15 Defendants.

17 After the Court construed a joint answer as the answer of Defendant Ron Taylor only, and not also LeadExcel, Plaintiff Anton Ewing quickly filed a request for entry of default. The Court instructed the Clerk not to enter default immediately, but instead gave LeadExcel 21 additional days, i.e., until November 25, to respond.

21 (See Docket no. 37.) If it did not respond by that date, Ewing was permitted to renew his request.

23 Ewing has now filed a document identified as a request for entry of default, including a points and authorities section chiding the Court for — in his view— misunderstanding the law and his briefing, and miscalculating dates. This was improper and pointless, and furthermore Ewing is wrong about the law. The Court has discretion and authority to extend the time for a defendant to answer, and will do so when — as was the case here — necessary to avoid unfairly surprising a ||defendant. Furthermore, including arguments in a request for entry of default by 2 Clerk is not the proper way to seek reconsideration of the Court’s orders, and 3 contrary to the Court’s standing order. See Standing Order in Civil Cases, { 3(e).

4 The renewed request for entry of default (Docket no. 38) is ORDERED || STRICKEN, and the Clerk shall remove it from the docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. || 12(f)(1); Gallardo v. United States, 672 Fed. Appx. 726, 727 (9" Cir. 2016).

7 This order does not prevent Ewing from renewing his request for entry of || default, but any renewed request must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), as well |/as other applicable rules and orders of the Court.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 ||Dated: December 3, 2019 13 / mit 4. ‘4, Wy 14 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 45 Chief United States District Judge