IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 22, 2011
BAY AREA PAINTERS AND TAPERS PENSION TRUST FUND, ET AL.,
JACK HARRIS DRYWALL, INC., DEFENDANT.
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR SUA SPONTE REVIEW OF DENIAL OF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
For the Northern District of California
Before the Court is a Request for Sua Sponte Review brought by Plaintiffs Bay Area Painters and Tapers Pension Trust Fund, et al. ("Plaintiffs"). ECF No. 27 ("Request"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Request.
On July 20, 2011 Plaintiffs brought a motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Jack Harris Drywall, Inc. ("Defendant").
ECF. No. 20 ("Mot.). On September 9, 2011, the Court denied the Motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs had failed to effectuate 23 proper service on Defendant. ECF No. 25 ("Order") at 3-4. Rule 4 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, to effect 25 proper service, a plaintiff must serve both a summons and a copy of 26 the complaint on the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). The Proof of Service Plaintiffs previously filed with the Court offers no indication that a copy of the Complaint had been served on Defendant. ECF No. 9 ("Proof of Service"); Order at 4.
4 reconsideration, or alternatively, request sua sponte review of the
Court's denial of Plaintiffs' Motion. Request at 1. Plaintiffs 6 state that, due to a filing error, the last page of the Proof of 7
Plaintiffs claim that this last page shows that the Complaint, 9 along with all related and required documents, had been properly 10 served on Defendant. Id. at 2, Ex. A. Plaintiffs contend that
they were unaware that the final page of the Proof of Service was 12 not filed until after the Court denied the Motion. Id. at 2.
The Court has the inherent power to reconsider, rescind, or modify interlocutory orders. City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica for default judgment constitutes such an interlocutory order.
Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 332 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1964). Accordingly, the Court may, sua sponte, reconsider its 19 denial of Plaintiff's Motion. In this case, reconsideration is in 20 the interest of justice since, if the Court's Order stands, 21 judgment will be delayed and Plaintiff will incur additional fees 22 and costs due to a missing page in an electronic filing. 23
Request for Sua Sponte Review of Denial of Motion for Default 25
Plaintiffs Bay Area Painters and Tapers Pension Trust Fund, et al., 27 shall file with the Court their corrected Proof of Service along 28
Now Plaintiffs request leave to file a motion for Service was not filed with the rest of the document. Id. at 2. 8
BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001). Denial of a motion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Judgment (ECF No. 27). Within thirty (30) days of this Order, with a decclarationn verifyiing the ccorrectedd Proof oof Servicce and 2 describingg the filling erroor relatiive to thhe originnal Prooff of Service (EECF No. 99). The Court shhall recoonsider iits rulinng on thee 4
Mootion forr Defaultt Judgmennt once tthe correected Prooof of Seervice annd 5 declaratioon are fiiled and will nottify counnsel whenn a rulinng is 6 maade. 7 8
IT ISS SO ORDEERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.