Ewing v. LeadExcel, Inc

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedDecember 3, 2019
Docket3:18-cv-02845
StatusUnknown

This text of Ewing v. LeadExcel, Inc (Ewing v. LeadExcel, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ewing v. LeadExcel, Inc, (S.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTON EWING, Case No.: 18cv2845-LAB (JLB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING RENEWED 13 v. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 14 LEADEXCEL, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 After the Court construed a joint answer as the answer of Defendant Ron 18 Taylor only, and not also LeadExcel, Plaintiff Anton Ewing quickly filed a request 19 for entry of default. The Court instructed the Clerk not to enter default immediately, 20 but instead gave LeadExcel 21 additional days, i.e., until November 25, to respond. 21 (See Docket no. 37.) If it did not respond by that date, Ewing was permitted to 22 renew his request. 23 Ewing has now filed a document identified as a request for entry of default, 24 including a points and authorities section chiding the Court for — in his view— 25 misunderstanding the law and his briefing, and miscalculating dates. This was 26 improper and pointless, and furthermore Ewing is wrong about the law. The Court 27 has discretion and authority to extend the time for a defendant to answer, and will 28 do so when — as was the case here — necessary to avoid unfairly surprising a 1 ||defendant. Furthermore, including arguments in a request for entry of default by 2 Clerk is not the proper way to seek reconsideration of the Court’s orders, and 3 contrary to the Court’s standing order. See Standing Order in Civil Cases, { 3(e). 4 The renewed request for entry of default (Docket no. 38) is ORDERED 5 || STRICKEN, and the Clerk shall remove it from the docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 || 12(f)(1); Gallardo v. United States, 672 Fed. Appx. 726, 727 (9" Cir. 2016). 7 This order does not prevent Ewing from renewing his request for entry of 8 || default, but any renewed request must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), as well 9 |/as other applicable rules and orders of the Court. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: December 3, 2019 13 / mit 4. ‘4, Wy 14 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 45 Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Garry Gallardo v. United States
672 F. App'x 726 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ewing v. LeadExcel, Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ewing-v-leadexcel-inc-casd-2019.