Russell Elliot and Nelly Elliot v. SPE Terra Nova Apartment Owners LLC., et. al

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00447
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 RUSSELL ELLIOT and NELLY Case No. 24-cv-00447-BAS-JLB ELLIOT, 16 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 17 (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ v. MOTION FOR DEFAULT 18 JUDGMENT (ECF No. 47) SPE TERRA NOVA APARTMENT 19 OWNERS LLC., et. al, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 20 MOTION FOR MORE Defendants. DEFINITE STATEMENT (ECF 21 No. 56)

22 (3) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 23 MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT (ECF No. 57) 24 (4) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 25 MOTION FOR CIVIL 26 CONTEMPT (ECF No. 66)

27 28 1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the captioned motions 2 submitted by Plaintiffs Russell Elliott and Nelly Elliott (“Plaintiffs”) against Defendants 3 Spe Terra Nova Apartment Owners LLC, Apartment Management Consultants LLC, and 4 Monica Flores (“Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 47, 56, 57, 66.) 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 Plaintiffs, Russell Elliot and Nelly Elliott, are a married couple with minor children. 7 (ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff Russell Elliott suffers from medical disabilities. (ECF No. 61 at 8 2:6-8.) On March 6, 2024, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint alleging housing 9 discrimination based on familial status, sex, disability, and national origin and intimidation. 10 (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants incorrectly assumed that their children left 11 toys on the sidewalk near their apartment complex, where Plaintiffs resided at the time. 12 (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs also allege that, as a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs are now 13 homeless (ECF No. 61 at 2:14-15.) Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint 14 on February 21, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiffs filed subsequent motions, including: (1) 15 an ex-parte application for default judgment against all Defendants (ECF No. 47); (2) a 16 motion for more definite statement against Defendant Spe Terra Nova Villas Apartment 17 Owner LLC (ECF No. 56); (3) motion for enforcement of judgment against (ECF No. 57); 18 (4) motion to hold Defendant Apartment Management Consultants, LLC in civil contempt 19 (ECF No. 66). Though the Court is sympathetic to pro se litigants’ challenges of navigating 20 legal procedure without the aid of legal counsel, the Court denies these motions for the 21 reasons below. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 A. Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 47) 24 Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment against Defendants, alleging that 25 Defendants failed to file a responsive pleading and should have default judgment entered 26 against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 55(b). (ECF No. 47.) 27 However, Defendants have filed an Answer (ECF No. 17). See Morrison v. Mahoney, 399 28 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005) (a responsive pleading is “a complaint and answer; a reply 1 to a counterclaim; an answer to a cross-claim; and a third party complaint and answer[ ]”). 2 Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 47). 3 B. Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 56) 4 Plaintiffs filed a motion for more definite statement regarding Defendants’ answer. 5 (ECF No. 56.) More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to disclose 6 their corporate structure, which Plaintiffs allege is important for determining who they are 7 litigating against. (Id. at 4:9–5:13.) However, Rule 12(e) prohibits responsive pleadings 8 to defensive matters alleged in answers. Balsitis v. Cnty. of Orange, No. 9 SACV071418JVSRNBX, 2008 WL 11409133, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2008) (citing 10 Schwarzer, Tashmina & Wagstaffe, Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 9:361). 11 Defendants’ answer consists entirely of affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 17.) Thus, the 12 Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 56). 13 C. Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 57) 14 Plaintiffs move to enforce a judgment lien from an unrelated action, to which 15 Plaintiffs are not party. (ECF No. 57 at 1:26–2:7.) “It is a basic principle of law that a 16 person who is not a party to an action is not bound by the judgment in that action.” Leu v. 17 Int'l Boundary Comm'n, 605 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Restatement (Second) 18 of Judgments §§ 34, 62 cmt. a (1982)). Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to 19 enforce judgment (ECF No. 57). 20 D. Motion for Civil Contempt (ECF No. 66) 21 Plaintiffs move to hold Defendant Apartment Management Consultants, LLC in civil 22 contempt for allegedly filing false statements in court and misrepresenting its corporate 23 status. (ECF No. 66.) As a legal matter, contempt is only available when the district court 24 finds by clear and convincing evidence that a party “violated a specific and definite order 25 of the court.” Parsons v. Ryan, 949 F.3d 443, 454 (9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs have failed 26 to allege any specific court order in this action that Apartment Management Consultants, 27 LLC could have violated. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Apartment 28 Management Consultants, LLC in civil contempt (ECF No. 66). 1 |}IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons above, the Court DENIES multiple motions submitted by Plaintiffs 3 ||against Defendants, including: (1) Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 47), 4 ||(2) Plaintiffs’ motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 56), (3) Plaintiffs’ motion to 5 enforce judgment (ECF No. 57), and (4) Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Defendant Apartment 6 || Management Consultants, LLC in civil contempt (ECF No. 66). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ~ 9 || DATED: December 15, 2025 (yatta Bahar □□ 10 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4A.