United States of America v. $755,831 in United States Currency

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00310-APG-DJA

Plaintiff Order

v.

$755,831 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant

Plaintiff United States of America filed two motions for default judgment. ECF Nos. 13, 16. It is unclear whether the first motion is moot in light of the second motion. Additionally, defendant Oliver Martinez-Mendez recently filed an answer. ECF No. 34. Thus, it is also unclear whether the United States’ motions for default judgment should be withdrawn or denied without prejudice as to the defaulting defendants until Martinez-Mendez’s answer is resolved. See In re Villegas, 132 B.R. 742, 746 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1991) (“Entry of default does not entitle the non-defaulting party to a default judgment as a matter of right.”); Full Tilt Boogie, LLC v. Bik, No. 23-3208, 2026 WL 252661, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2026) (“When there are defendants who are jointly and severally liable, the court should not impose liability on the defaulting defendant before determining whether the answering defendants are liable.”); In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that “where a complaint alleges that defendants are jointly liable and one of them defaults, judgment should not be entered against the defaulting defendant until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants”); Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2012) (stating that this rule extends “beyond jointly liable co-defendants to those that are similarly situated, such that the case against each rests on the same legal theory” because “it would be incongruous and unfair to allow a 1} plaintiff to prevail against defaulting defendants on a legal theory rejected by a court with regard an answering defendant in the same action.” (simplified)). 3 I THEREFORE ORDER that by February 27, 2026, the United States must advise the 4! court (1) whether ECF No. 13 is moot in light of ECF No. 16 and (2) whether ECF No. 16 should be withdrawn or denied without prejudice as to the defaulting defendants until defendant Oliver Martinez-Mendez’s answer is resolved. If the United States withdraws both motions by that date, 1t need not otherwise respond to this order. 8 DATED this 10th day of February, 2026.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE