Opinion
18-cv-04330-HSG
07-06-2022
SCOTT JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. FRANCES I. KELSEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS' ANSWER
RE: DKT. NO. 61
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff asked the Clerk of Court to enter default against Defendant Go To Auto Care Inc. on the ground that Defendant has not appeared at various hearings and has therefore abandoned this lawsuit. Dkt. No. 58. The Clerk declined to enter default because even though Defendant has not entered an appearance in almost two years, it filed an Answer in August 2018. Dkt. No. 59; see also Dkt. No. 7 (Answer).
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike the Answer on the ground that Defendants have abandoned the case. Dkt. No. 61 (or the “Motion”). Defendants failed to file an opposition to the Motion by the deadline under the Local Rules, so the Court directed Defendants to file any opposition to the Motion by June 30, 2022. Dkt. No. 64. The Court also advised Defendants that if they failed to do so, the Motion would be granted, and the Answer would be stricken. Id. That deadline has passed, and Defendants still have not opposed the Motion or otherwise appeared in this case.
In light of Defendants' failure to appear and to comply with court orders, as well as their failure to oppose Plaintiff's motion to strike, the Court GRANTS the Motion and exercises its inherent power to control its docket to STIKE the Answer of Defendants Frances I. Kelsey and Go To Auto Care Inc. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a renewed motion for entry of default by July 13, 2022.
See Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.”); PNC Equip. Fin. LLC v. California Fairs Fin. Auth., No. CV116248MMMDTBX, 2013 WL 12128689, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2013) (striking defendant's answer in light of its failure to appear and to comply with court orders); Animal Blood Bank, Inc. v. Hale, No. 2:1O-cv-O2o80 KJM KJN, 2012 WL 2160960, *4-5 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2012) (same); Schudel v. Searchguy.com, Inc., No. 07cv0695 BEN, 2010 WL 1945743 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2010) (same); Netsuite, Inc. v. CIPC Worldwide Holdings Corp., No. C 07-5235 SI, 2008 WL 2812164, *3 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2008) (same). 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.