Iliya v. United States Marshalls Service

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 DAUDA ILIYA, Case No. 24-cv-03720-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT

10 UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Re: Dkt. No. 16 11 Defendant.

12 13 On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff Dauda Iliya filed a Motion for Default Judgment pursuant 14 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). ECF No. 16. The Ninth Circuit has stated that Rule 55 15 requires a “two-step process” consisting of: (1) seeking a clerk’s entry of default, and (2) filing a 16 motion for the entry of default judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 17 1986) (“Eitel apparently fails to understand the two-step process required by Rule 55.”); Symantec 18 Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting “the two-step process of 19 ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’”). 20 In light of the requirement to obtain entry of default before seeking default judgment, 21 courts regularly deny motions for default judgment where default has not been previously entered. 22 See, e.g., Ardalan v. McHugh, 2013 WL 6212710, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013) (“Without 23 first obtaining an entry of default against Defendants, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is 24 improperly before this Court.”); Marty v. Green, 2011 WL 320303, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) 25 (“Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is denied because plaintiff did not follow the procedural 26 steps required to properly file a motion for default judgment. Specifically, plaintiff failed to seek a 27 clerk’s entry of default from the Clerk of Court prior to filing his motion for default judgment.”); 1 for default judgment because “the clerk has not entered default’’). 2 In this case, default has not been entered against Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 3 motion is improperly before this Court and the motion is DENIED. 5 6 Dated: October 29, 2024 7 g | □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28