From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lindblad v. Bolanos

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 13, 2021
21-cv-06606-SI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-06606-SI

12-13-2021

ROBERT LINDBLAD, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS G. BOLANOS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT RE: DKT. NO. 19

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a), plaintiff filed a pro se motion for default judgment on November 8, 2021. Dkt. No. 19. Plaintiff did not, however, seek or obtain issuance of a Default from the Office of the Clerk, as is required prior to issuance of a Default Judgment by the Court. Plaintiff s motion for default judgment alleges defendants received service on October 12, 2021. Id. ¶ 4. However, the Process Receipt and Return documentation from the U.S. Marshal, Dkt. No. 24, indicates that defendants were served on November 2, 2021. Dkt. No. 20. Further, defendants assert in their Case Management Conference Statement that proper service has never been effected. In light of this confusion, defendants have proposed, and the Court directs, that service shall be deemed complete by November 23, 2021. Thus responses are not due until December 15, 2021.

The grant or denial of default judgment is “entirely within the court's discretion.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1174 (CD. Cal. 2002). Because plaintiffs motion is premature given the date of service, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 1


Summaries of

Lindblad v. Bolanos

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 13, 2021
21-cv-06606-SI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2021)
Case details for

Lindblad v. Bolanos

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT LINDBLAD, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS G. BOLANOS, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 13, 2021

Citations

21-cv-06606-SI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2021)