Bergman v. Moto

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 9 11 CASE NO. C22-cv-00161-RAJ Plaintiff, v. 13 IVAN MOTO, 14 15 Defendant. 16 18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order 19 Granting Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default. Dkt. # 29. For the reasons 20 below, the Court DENIES the Motion. 22 Plaintiff contends that Defendant obtained the order setting aside the default 23 through fraud. Dkt. # 29 at 3. Namely, Plaintiff contends that Defendant does not have a 24 “meritorious defense” based on testimony given in a separate proceeding between the 25 parties. Id. 26 In showing good cause, a party seeking to set aside the entry of default must allege 27 sufficient facts that, if true, would constitute a defense. US v. Signed Personal check No. 1 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). This burden is “not 2 extraordinarily heavy.” TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 700 (9th 3 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 5 which denies the allegations against him, claiming that he never abused Plaintiff during 6 their relationship and Plaintiff never once expressed being abused during their 7 relationship. See Dkt. # 17-1. He also alleges that he and Plaintiff continued to have good 8 relations after their relationship ended and that she never raised any issues regarding 9 abuse until nearly a year later. Id. These facts are enough to constitute a defense. Mesle, 10 615 F.3d at 1094. Furthermore, case law requires that the movant’s factual allegations be 11 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 13 Defendant’s statements are actually untrue, are insufficient to show that he sought to set 14 aside the default through fraud. For that reason, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to 15 vacate the prior order. 17 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion. Dkt. # 29. 18 19 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2023. 20 A 21

22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge 24

25 26 27