Opinion
Case No. 15-cv-05290-PSG
03-24-2016
INTERAXON INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEUROTEK, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTIONS TO ENTER OR SET ASIDE DEFAULTS
(Re: Docket Nos. 26, 28, 30)
Earlier this month, the Clerk of Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to enter default as to Defendants NeuroTek, LLC and Mindwaves, Ltd., but the Clerk declined to enter default as to Defendant Jonathan Cowan. Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the latter decision. Meanwhile, Cowan moves for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' complaint and to set aside the defaults as to the corporate Defendants.
See Docket Nos. 18, 19, 20.
See Docket No. 26. Although Plaintiffs cite to no Rule permitting such a motion, the court will interpret it as a renewed motion to enter default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The latter may be directed to the court instead of to the Clerk of Court. See In re Burchell Enters., Inc., Case No. 04-cv-05193, 2005 WL 1154302, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2005) (citing Breuer Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Toronado Sys. of Am., Inc., 687 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1982)).
See Docket No. 28.
See Docket No. 30.
Although Cowan still has "failed to plead or otherwise defend" within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), he has "appear[ed] and indicate[d] a desire to contest [the] action." In keeping with "the policy of allowing cases to be tried on the merits," the court therefore exercises its discretion to allow Cowan to proceed. Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED, and Cowan's motion is GRANTED-IN-PART. He shall file any responsive pleading by April 8, 2016.
Rogovsky Enter., Inc. v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 3d 1034, 1039-40 (D. Minn. 2015) (quoting Wendt v. Pratt, 154 F.R.D. 229, 230 (D. Minn. 1994)); see also 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2682 (3d ed. 1998).
Rogovsky Enter., 88 F. Supp. 3d at 1040 (quoting Wendt, 154 F.R.D. at 230). --------
As to the remaining Defendants, however, Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) requires corporate entities to "appear . . . through a member of the bar of this Court." Because Cowan is not a member of this court, he may not file motions on their behalf. The corporate Defendants' motion to set aside their defaults therefore is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2016
/s/_________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge