McGee v. The City of Hercules

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 ANTHONY MCGEE, Case No. 23-cv-05161-TSH

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

10 THE CITY OF HERCULES, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 84 11 Defendants.

12 13 On September 17, 2025, Plaintiff Anthony McGee filed a Motion for Default Judgment 14 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). ECF No. 84. 15 The Ninth Circuit has stated that Rule 55 requires a “two-step process” consisting of: (1) 16 seeking a clerk’s entry of default, and (2) filing a motion for the entry of default judgment. See 17 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986); Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 18 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting “the two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a 19 Default Judgment’”). In light of this two-step process, courts regularly deny motions for default 20 judgment where default has not been previously entered. See, e.g., Ardalan v. McHugh, 2013 WL 21 6212710, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013) (“Without first obtaining an entry of default against 22 Defendants, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is improperly before this Court.”); Fruit v. 23 James Corrado Inc., 2024 WL 2883259, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2024) (“Entry of default must be 24 obtained prior to entry of default judgment.”); Woodhouse v. United States, 2022 WL 2903139, at 25 *2 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2022) (“[T]he Court denies plaintiff's motion for default because Rule 55 26 requires that a plaintiff first obtain a Clerk’s entry of default.”); Norman v. Small, 2010 WL 27 5173683, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2010) (denying plaintiff’s motion for default judgment because 1 In this case, default has not been entered against Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 2 motion is improperly before this Court and the motion is therefore DENIED. 4 5 Dated: September 18, 2025 6 7 TAA. |4}-4— THOMAS S. HIXSON 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11

13 "a 14 Sey

15 16

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