Russell Elliot and Nelly Elliot v. SPE Terra Nova Apartment Owners LLC., et. al
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed four motions: for default judgment, for a more definite statement, to enforce a judgment from an unrelated action, and for civil contempt. The court denied all four motions, finding that the defendants had answered the complaint, the answer contained only affirmative defenses, the plaintiffs were not parties to the judgment they sought to enforce, and no specific court order had been violated.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 47)“Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 47).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that default judgment under Rule 55 is unavailable when a responsive pleading has been filed. The record indicates that Defendants filed an Answer on February 21, 2025 (ECF No. 17). The citation to Morrison v. Mahoney supports the definition of a responsive pleading. The decision follows logically from the procedural posture. |
Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 56)“Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 56).” | agree with court The court relied on Balsitis v. Cnty. of Orange to state that Rule 12(e) does not apply to affirmative defenses. While the legal principle that a motion for a more definite statement is generally directed at the complaint (or sometimes an answer's general denials) is standard, the citation to Balsitis (an unpublished district court order) is weak authority for a broad procedural rule. However, the result is defensible because the answer consisted entirely of affirmative defenses, which are typically addressed via motions to strike or summary judgment, not Rule 12(e). The court's reasoning is sound in result, though the authority cited is not binding or particularly strong. |
Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 57)“Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce judgment (ECF No. 57).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle of privity, citing Leu v. Int'l Boundary Comm'n, a Ninth Circuit case. Since the plaintiffs are not parties to the unrelated action from which the judgment lien arises, they cannot enforce that judgment in this action. The reasoning is legally sound and supported by binding circuit authority. |
Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Civil Contempt (ECF No. 66)“Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Apartment Management Consultants, LLC in civil contempt (ECF No. 66).” | agree with court The court correctly stated the standard for civil contempt, citing Parsons v. Ryan, a Ninth Circuit case. The court found that plaintiffs failed to allege a specific and definite court order that was violated. This is a threshold requirement for civil contempt. The denial is supported by the record as described in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the procedural defects in each of the four motions: the existence of an answer precludes default judgment; Rule 12(e) is inapplicable to affirmative defenses; non-parties cannot enforce judgments from other actions; and civil contempt requires a specific violated order. The court cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the privity and contempt standards. The reliance on an unpublished district court order for the Rule 12(e) point is a minor gap, but the result is consistent with general federal practice.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
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.