Castro v. Ganot

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01438
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 25cv1438 DMS (DEB) ERIC RAY CASTRO, Trustee of the Eric

11 Ray Castro Trust, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 12 Plaintiff, SET ASIDE DEFAULTS v. 13 OFFICER C. GANOT (SANCATT-6); 14 SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFF’S 15 DEPARTMENT; NORTH COUNTY BUICK GMC CADILLAC; 16 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; 17 and DOES 1-50, 18 Defendants. 19 20 This case comes before the Court on the motions to set aside default filed by 21 Defendants San Bernardino County and California Highway Patrol. Plaintiff filed an 22 opposition to each motion, and Defendants each filed a reply. For the reasons set out 23 below, the motions are granted. 24 I. 25 DISCUSSION 26 Defendants ask this Court to set aside their defaults pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 55(c). This Rule states: “The court may set aside an entry of default for good 28 cause, and it may set aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). 1 The good cause analysis under Rules 55(c) and 60(b) “considers three factors: ‘(1) whether 2 [the defendant] engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) whether [the 3 defendant] had a meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default judgment would 4 prejudice [the plaintiff].’” Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Restaurants Group, 5 Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Am. Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians 6 v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1008 (9th Cir. 2000)). The defendant bears “the burden of 7 showing that any of these factors favor[s] setting aside the default.” Id. at 926. 8 Here, Defendants assert each of the factors warrants setting aside their defaults. The 9 first factor is culpable conduct. The Ninth Circuit has held “that the defendant’s conduct 10 is culpable if he has received actual or constructive notice of the filing of the action and 11 intentionally failed to answer.” Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 12 1392 (9th Cir. 1989). See also Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized 13 Technologies, Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 1988); Meadows v. Dominican Republic, 14 817 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1987) (same). In this case, it appears neither Defendant was 15 served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2). Specifically, neither 16 Defendant was served via delivery of the summons and complaint on its “chief executive 17 officer”, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2)(A), nor was either Defendant served in accordance with 18 California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.30. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2)(B). That statute 19 requires that service by mail be made “(by first-class mail or airmail, postage prepaid) to 20 the person to be served, together with two copies of the notice and acknowledgement 21 provided for in subdivision (b) and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the 22 sender.” Cal. Civ. P. Code § 415.30(a). Plaintiff’s service by mail did not meet these 23 requirements. Instead, he served the documents by certified mail and without a notice and 24 acknowledgement of receipt. In light of the record, the first factor, culpable conduct, 25 weighs in favor of setting aside the defaults. 26 The only other factor Defendants address is prejudice, and they simply state Plaintiff 27 will not suffer any prejudice if the defaults are set aside. Plaintiff argues he would be 28 prejudiced because if the defaults are set aside the case will be delayed, but “[m]ere delay 1 insufficient prejudice to prevent the entry of default from being set aside.” Tacori 2 || Enterprises v. S. Kashi & Sons, No. 2:18-cv-09921-R-AFM, 2019 WL 8198236, at *1 3 ||(C.D. Cal. July 1, 2019) (citing TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 701 4 Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of setting aside the defaults. 5 Il. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Considering the factors set out above, the Court grants each Defendant’s motion to 8 aside their respective defaults.! 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 9, 2025

D Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 'Tn light of this ruling, Plaintiff’ s motions for default judgment against San Bernardino County and the California Highway Patrol are denied as moot.