Bergman v. Moto

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 SIGNE BERGMAN, 11 CASE NO. C22-cv-00161-RAJ Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. IVAN MOTO, 15 Defendant.

17 I. BACKGROUND 18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default. Dkt. # 29. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the Motion.

21 II. DISCUSSION 22 Plaintiff contends that Defendant obtained the order setting aside the default through fraud. Dkt. # 29 at 3. Namely, Plaintiff contends that Defendant does not have a “meritorious defense” based on testimony given in a separate proceeding between the parties. Id. 26 In showing good cause, a party seeking to set aside the entry of default must allege sufficient facts that, if true, would constitute a defense. US v. Signed Personal check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). This burden is “not extraordinarily heavy.” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 700 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff brings tort claims against Defendant for assault and battery. See Dkt.

4 # 1. In support of the motion to set aside default, Defendant provided a declaration in which denies the allegations against him, claiming that he never abused Plaintiff during their relationship and Plaintiff never once expressed being abused during their relationship. See Dkt. # 17-1. He also alleges that he and Plaintiff continued to have good relations after their relationship ended and that she never raised any issues regarding abuse until nearly a year later. Id. These facts are enough to constitute a defense. Mesle, 615 F.3d at 1094. Furthermore, case law requires that the movant’s factual allegations be accepted as true for the purpose of setting aside default. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 12 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988). The allegations set forth by Plaintiff’s Motion, that some of Defendant’s statements are actually untrue, are insufficient to show that he sought to set aside the default through fraud. For that reason, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the prior order.

16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion. Dkt. # 29.

19 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2023.

A The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge