Opinion
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02165-OWW-SKO.
April 25, 2011
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Docket Nos. 8, 9, 15
On March 31, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendant's motion to set aside the entry of default be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties appearing in the action and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fifteen (15) days after service of the order. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff filed objections on April 15, 2011. (Doc. 18.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Although Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's conduct in failing to answer the complaint was culpable, Defendant adequately explained that he mistakenly believed that the complaint was a fraudulent attempt to extract a settlement from him, and as a result he did not respond to it. In other words, Defendant — acting at that time without the benefit of an attorney — did not understand that the complaint was legitimate and that a case had actually been filed in federal court. (Doc. 9, p. 9, ¶ 3 ("I did not fully appreciate or understand that I was actually being sued in the federal court . . . I thought it was a scam, and not a real lawsuit.").) This misunderstanding does not amount to bad faith. See United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle ( "Mesle"), 615 F.3d 1085, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2010).
Further, Defendant has adequately set forth facts constituting a meritorious defense, and there is no prejudice to Plaintiff in setting aside the entry of default. In Mesle, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that "judgment by default is a drastic step appropriate only in extreme circumstances; a case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits." 615 F.3d at 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984)). The facts of this case do not indicate extreme circumstances that warrant refusing to set aside Defendant's default or granting default judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued March 31, 2011, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and
2. Defendant erroneously filed an answer to the complaint prior to this order; that answer is DEEMED FILED as of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 22, 2011