1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 18-cv-04330-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 9 v. STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

10 FRANCES I. KELSEY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 61 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff asked the Clerk of Court to enter default against Defendant Go To Auto Care Inc. 14 on the ground that Defendant has not appeared at various hearings and has therefore abandoned 15 this lawsuit. Dkt. No. 58. The Clerk declined to enter default because even though Defendant has 16 not entered an appearance in almost two years, it filed an Answer in August 2018. Dkt. No. 59; 17 see also Dkt. No. 7 (Answer). 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Answer on the ground that Defendants 19 have abandoned the case. Dkt. No. 61 (or the “Motion”). Defendants failed to file an opposition 20 to the Motion by the deadline under the Local Rules, so the Court directed Defendants to file any 21 opposition to the Motion by June 30, 2022. Dkt. No. 64. The Court also advised Defendants that 22 if they failed to do so, the Motion would be granted, and the Answer would be stricken. Id. That 23 deadline has passed, and Defendants still have not opposed the Motion or otherwise appeared in 24 this case. 25 In light of Defendants’ failure to appear and to comply with court orders, as well as their 26 failure to oppose Plaintiff’s motion to strike, the Court GRANTS the Motion and exercises its 27 inherent power to control its docket to STIKE the Answer of Defendants Frances I. Kelsey and 1 Go To Auto Care Inc.' Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a renewed motion for entry of default by 2 || July 13, 2022. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated:7/6/2022 ° HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ' See Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A.,

(9th Cir. 1986) (“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power they may impose 25 sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.”); PNC Equip. Fin. LLC v. California Fairs Fin, Auth., No. CV1162483MMMDTBX,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 26 || 2013) (striking defendant’s answer in light of its failure to appear and to comply with court orders); Animal Blood Bank, Inc. v. Hale, No. 2:10-cv—02080 KJM KJN,

, *4-5 07 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2012) (same); Schudel v. Searchguy.com, Inc., No. 07cv0695 BEN,

(S.D. Cal. May 13, 2010) (same); Netsuite, Inc. v. CIPC Worldwide Holdings Corp., No. ag || © 07-5235 SL

, *3 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2008) (same).