Charman v. Sethi

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 14, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-02046
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THANE CHARMAN, an Case No.: 3:23-cv-2046-WQH-JLB individual, 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 HAMEET SETHI, an individual, 15 Defendant. 16 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Entry of 19 Default and File Second Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 25.) 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff Thane Charman (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action by 22 filing a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First 23 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) 24 On December 26, 2023, Defendant Hameet Sethi (“Defendant”) filed an Answer to 25 the Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) 26 On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request to Enter Default Against Defendant 27 Hameet Sethi (ECF No. 23), because, since filing the Answer on December 26, 2023, 28 1 therefore, [is] now in default.” (ECF No. 23 ¶ 6.) On July 22, 2024, the Clerk of the Court 2 entered default against Defendant Hameet Sethi. (ECF No. 24.) 3 Plaintiff now moves to set aside the Entry of Default (ECF No. 24) as to Defendant 4 and file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 25.) 5 II. SETTING ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT 6 “The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c); 7 see also Curry v. Jensen, 523 F.2d 387, 388 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Absent an abuse of discretion, 8 there is no error in setting aside a default where the judge finds good cause to do so.”) 9 (citing Lau Ah Yew v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 415 (9th Cir. 1956)). The Court’s discretion “is 10 especially broad” when setting aside entry of default rather than a default judgment. See 11 Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1986). 12 One factor in determining “good cause” to set aside default is “whether reopening 13 default judgment would prejudice” the other party. Franchise Holding II, LLC. v. 14 Huntington Rests. Grp., Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiff is moving 15 to set aside the Clerk’s Entry of Default (ECF No. 24), which was granted in Plaintiff’s 16 favor, so that Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint. The Court finds there is good 17 cause to set aside the entry of default. 18 III. LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that, after a responsive pleading 20 has been served, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written 21 consent or the court’s leave.” Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave 22 when justice so requires.” Id. While leave to amend is not granted automatically, see 23 Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990), the policy of free 24 amendment is to be applied with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 25 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). The decision to grant or deny 26 leave to amend the pleadings is left to the district court’s discretion, see Jackson, 902 F.2d 27 at 1387, however, the general rule is that amendment is permitted “unless the opposing 28 party makes a showing of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility of amendment 1 on the part of the moving party.” SAES Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 2 1081, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 3 Plaintiff requests leave to file a second amended complaint because “Plaintiff has 4 newly discovered evidence that shows direct liability of Defendant in sending the text 5 messages that are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.” (ECF No. 25 at 6 5.) Plaintiff has attached a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint to the 7 Motion. (ECF No. 25-1.) After reviewing the proposed Second Amended Complaint and 8 considering the lenient standard for leave to amend, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request 9 to file a second amended complaint should be granted. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 25) is granted. The 12 Clerk’s Entry of Default (ECF No. 24) shall be set aside. Plaintiff shall file the Second 13 Amended Complaint no later than fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order. 14 15 Dated: _11/14/2024__________ 16 Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28