Mark E. Towner v. A Place for Rover Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00553
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 MARK E. TOWNER, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00553-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND v. MOTION TO STRIKE 10 A PLACE FOR ROVER INC., 11 Defendant. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Mark Towner’s Motion for 14 Default. Dkt. No. 119. Having considered the motion, Defendant A Place for Rover 15 Inc.’s response, Dkt. No. 122, the reply, Dkt. No. 124, the relevant record, and all 16 other supporting materials, the Court DENIES the motion. 17 Towner filed his Third Amended Complaint on November 6, 2025, bringing 18 claims against Defendants Rover, Easterly, Turner, and Wickers. Dkt. No. 117. On 19 November 17, 2025, he voluntarily dismissed his claims against Easterly, Turner, 20 and Wickers, leaving Rover as the sole defendant in this case. See Dkt. No. 118. 21 Then, on November 22, 2025, Towner moved for default against Rover for failing to 22 23 1 timely respond to his latest complaint. Dkt. No. 119. Rover filed its answer on 2 December 4, 2025.

3 Towner’s motion for default does not follow the requirements of the local 4 rules. Local Civil Rule 55(a) states that when a party has made an appearance in 5 the case, they must be given written notice of their opponent’s intent to move for 6 entry of default “at least fourteen days prior” to the motion itself. LCR 55(a).1 The 7 local rules specifically require that the movant for default “provide evidence” 8 sufficient to show that the written notice was provided to the defaulting party. Id.

9 Towner did not provide Rover with the requisite notice of his intent to move for 10 default, and so his motion is DENIED for violating the local rules. See Miranda v. S. 11 Pac. Transp. Co., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983) (“District courts have broad 12 discretion in interpreting and applying their local rules.”). 13 The Court also declines to strike Defendant’s Answer to Towner’s Third 14 Amended Complaint as untimely. “The disposition of a motion to strike is within the 15 broad discretion of the district court.” Sanders v. Energy Nw., No. 12-CV-0580-TOR,

16 2013 WL 12212725, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2013) (citing Stanbury Law Firm v. 17 I.R.S., 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000)). Towner’s sole argument about why 18 Defendant’s answer should be struck is his claim that the 14-day delay was 19 prejudicial. Dkt. No. 124 at 4. But beyond this conclusory claim, Towner does not 20 1 Towner claims that “Local Civil Rule 55(a) tracks Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 55(a) verbatim and imposes no such [14-day notice] obligation.” Dkt. No. 124 at 3–4. This is incorrect. Towner is encouraged to review the current Local Civil Rules for 22 the Western District of Washington, which can be accessed through the Court’s website via the following hyperlink: https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/local-rules-and- 23 orders 1 demonstrate why or how Defendant’s delay caused him prejudice. Accordingly, the 2 Court DENIES Towner’s motion to strike. Dkt. No. 124.

3 In sum, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motions at Dkt. Nos. 119 and 124 4 are DENIED. 5 Dated this 23rd day of December, 2025. 6 A Jamal N. Whitehead 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23