Ewing v. Gitre

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Anton EWING, Case No.: 24-cv-1213-AGS-DDL 4 Plaintiff, ORDER EXTENDING SHOW-CAUSE 5 v. DEADLINE AND DENYING PENDING MOTIONS WITHOUT 6 Christopher GITRE, et al., PREJUDICE (ECF 11, 17, 40, 41) 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Anton Ewing, proceeding without an attorney, sued defendants Christopher 10 Gitre and Relief Consultants, LLC, for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 11 and other statutes, alleging that they repeatedly contacted Ewing without permission. (See 12 generally ECF 1.) A procedural kerfuffle ensued. 13 Defendants initially failed to respond, so the Clerk of Court entered default against 14 them. (ECF 9; ECF 10.) But when Ewing filed his default-judgment motion, then- 15 unrepresented Gitre appeared for the first time and opposed it. (ECF 12.) Thereafter, 16 defendants ostensibly retained counsel, but that attorney filed a defective answer, and the 17 Clerk of Court “instructed” defendants “to withdraw[] and refile” it. (See ECF 16.) They 18 did not. Plus, they failed to appear for the Early Neutral Evaluation and the subsequent 19 status conference. (See ECF 23, at 2; ECF 26.) So the Court issued an order to show cause. 20 (ECF 26.) 21 The Court later discharged that order, after Gitre represented that he “was not aware 22 of either” the ENE or the status conference and hadn’t realized that his initial counsel may 23 have “been disbarred at the time.” (ECF 28, at 1; ECF 30.) Defendants then briefly retained 24 new counsel, but are now once again unrepresented. (See ECF 42.) After defendants’ latest 25 attorney-client break-up, the Court tried to hold another status conference, but, yet again, 26 “neither Defendant appeared,” leading to another show-cause order. (ECF 46; ECF 47.) 27 That latest order requires defendants to show cause, “in writing,” “why sanctions 28 should not issue for their failure to appear at the Status Conference.” (ECF 47, at 2.) The 1 Court also served a copy of that order at “the address Mr. Gitre listed for himself in his 2 || Notice of Change of Address.” (Ud. (citing ECF 34).) The Court now extends the deadline 3 ||for that order to show cause and gives defendants one last chance to participate in this 4 || lawsuit. 5 By August 8, 2025, defendants must show cause, in writing, why this Court should 6 ||not enter default judgment against them. See Aldabe vy. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 7 || (9th Cir. 1980) (explaining that the “court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment 8 |/is a discretionary one”). By that same date, Relief Consultants, LLC, must retain counsel. 9 || See In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) (noting that a “corporation can appear 10 a court proceeding only through an attorney at law”); CivLR □□□□□□□ 11 || (“[C]orporations . .. may appear in court only through an attorney.”). 12 In light of today’s order, the following pending motions are all DENIED without 13 || prejudice: Ewing’s motions for default judgment and to strike Gitre’s answer (ECF 11; 14 || ECF 17), as well as defendants’ motions to strike Ewing’s request for attorney’s fees and 15 || to vacate the Clerk’s entry of default (ECF 40; ECF 41). If the Court is convinced not to 16 ||issue a default judgment, the parties may refile these motions. 17 Dated: July 10, 2025 19 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28