Roller v. County of San Diego

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERIC ROLLER, Case No.: 22cv0696 DMS (BLM) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION v. FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 15 Defendant.

17 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s application for entry of Defendant’s default. Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s request, which states two copies of the Summons and Complaint were delivered to the Clerk of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. The first was hand-delivered on May 19, 2022, followed by a copy delivered by U.S. Mail and received on May 31, 2022. Apparently, the County did not deliver a copy of the Summons and Complaint to County Counsel until May 31, 2022, and based on that delivery date, County Counsel calendared its response date as June 21, 2022. However, based on the hand-delivery date of May 19, 2022, the County should have filed its response by June 9, 2022. There being no response by that date, Plaintiff filed the present request.

26 Although a default has not yet been entered, the Court looks to the factors that would apply to a motion to set aside a default in deciding Plaintiff’s request. Those factors are “‘(1) whether [the defendant] engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) || whether [the defendant] had a meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default ||judgment would prejudice [the plaintiff].”” Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington || Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Am. Ass’n of || Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1008 (9th Cir. 2000)). Based on the record presently before the Court, all of these factors would weigh in favor of setting aside ||a default. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for entry of default is respectfully denied.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: June 22, 2022 em Dh 9 an Yn.

10 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court