United States v. Brooke

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES, No. 2:22–cv–960–KJM–CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF 13 v. BILL H. BROOKE, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 In this action, Plaintiff United States filed a Complaint to reduce federal tax assessments to judgment and foreclose federal tax liens on real property against Bill H.

19 Brooke, the Estate of Shirley J. Brooke, and the Shasta County Treasurer-Tax Collector.

20 (ECF No. 1.) Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendant Bill H. Brooke, which was filed on December 19, 2023. (ECF No. 36.)

22 Defendant Brooke failed to file an opposition, and so the Court vacated the hearing and provided him with an opportunity to file a written response. (ECF No. 37.) Defendant Brooke did not file a written response, but the Court subsequently learned that Defendant Brooke appeared at the Sacramento federal courthouse on the date of the vacated hearing. Given this, and out of an abundance of caution, the Court ordered Defendant Brooke to file a written response to the default judgment motion by February 28, 2024. (ECF No. 39.)

1 On February 26, 2024, Defendant Brooke filed a request for more time to oppose, || indicating he was attempting to secure counsel for this matter. (ECF No. 40.) Given this, | the Court directed Defendant Brooke to file a declaration by April 30, 2024 describing the | efforts he made to retain counsel. (ECF No. 41.) The Court also ordered Defendant | Brooke to file his opposition to the motion for default judgment, or a statement of non- || opposition, by May 14, 2024. (/d.)

7 On April 29, 2024, Defendant Brooke filed a notice indicating he was still trying to || secure counsel but had not done so. (ECF No. 43.) Further, Defendant Brooke filed a | “response to opposition” on May 9, 2024. (ECF No. 44.) The Court construes this filing | as Defendant Brooke’s opposition to the motion for default judgment.

11 Given the longstanding policy in this Circuit of discouraging judgment by default, | see Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986), and in the interests of justice, | the Court now orders Plaintiff United States to file a reply brief within 10 days of this | order. Therein, Plaintiff shall either: (a) argue why default judgment should still be || entered under the factors described in Eitel; or (b) state it has no opposition to the Court || lifting the entry of default and ordering Defendant to respond to the Complaint.

17 ORDER 18 Accordingly, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff United States shall file a || reply brief to Defendant Brooke’s opposition within 10 days of this order.

21 || Dated: May 28, 2024 Cc (i s □□ 22 CHI SOO KIM 93 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || 3, broo.960