Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 24-CV-978 W (AHG)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 150] 13 NANCY SCHAEDLER-MOORE et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is Defendant Nancy Schaedler-Moore’s motion for reconsideration. 17 (Doc. 150.) Ms. Schaedler-Moore requests that the Court reconsider the following: (1) the 18 January 12, 2026 order that denied sequencing of the disposition of certain motions, 19 allowed leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion to alter/amend 20 the judgment, set a briefing schedule on the motion to join parties, and permitted the filing 21 of a sur-reply to the motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 139); (2) the January 22, 22 2026 order that denied the motion for temporary stay of enforcement, granted the motion 23 to continue the briefing schedule on the motion to alter/amend judgment, and clarified the 24 page limit (Doc. 145); and (3) the January 13, 2025 order that entered default judgment 25 against Defendant’s S-corporation (Doc. 48).1 Defendant filed a response in opposition. 26 27 1 Ms. Schaedler-Moore also requested reconsideration of the Court’s February 4, 2026 minute order (See 28 1 (Doc. 163.) The Court considers each request for reconsideration below . 2 First, Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s request for reconsideration of the January 12, 2026 3 order is DENIED AS MOOT. In her sequencing motion, Ms. Schaedler-Moore asked the 4 Court to: (1) first resolve her motion to join parties; (2) then set a briefing schedule on her 5 motion to alter/amend the Court’s judgment; and (3) hold Defendant/Cross-Defendant 6 Freedom’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 77) in abeyance. (See Docs. 121, 7 123.) The Court denied the motion and has since issued rulings on the motion to join parties 8 and the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See Docs. 159, 161.) The only motion 9 remaining from the proposed sequence is the motion to alter/amend the Court’s judgment. 10 Furthermore, the remainder of January 12 order merely established a briefing schedule for 11 motions that have now been resolved or otherwise altered3. Accordingly, reconsideration 12 of that order is now moot. 13 Ms. Schaedler-Moore also seeks reconsideration of the January 22, 2026 order 14 denying her request for a stay of enforcement. Ms. Schaedler-Moore has repeatedly sought 15 a stay in this matter, including through: (1) an ex parte emergency motion to stay the case 16 (Doc. 101), (2) a motion to stay proceedings for an administrative stay and sequencing 17 (Doc. 121), (3) an ex parte application for a temporary enforcement stay (Doc. 141), and 18 (4) an ex parte application to temporarily stay enforcement or a temporary restraining order 19 in the alternative (Doc. 147). Most recently, she filed another motion for reconsideration 20 that again requests an administrative stay. (See Doc. 162.) Since she has filed a new motion 21 raising the same issue, the Court finds that motion supersedes the reconsideration request 22 23 24 enforcement, or temporary restraining order. However, in denying that application, the Court denied the 25 portion of Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s motion for reconsideration that requested a reply brief. (See Doc. 154 at n.1.) Accordingly, it is not addressed here. 26 2 Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s motion for reconsideration raised issues not previously addressed in this Court’s orders. Therefore, those issues are beyond the scope of a motion for reconsideration and are not 27 addressed here. 3 The Court granted Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s motion to extend the briefing schedule in a more recent 28 1 ||currently before the Court. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration on this issue is 2 || DENIED AS MOOT. 3 Lastly, Ms. Schaedler-Moore requests reconsideration of the Court’s January 13, 4 ||2025 order that entered default judgment against her S-corporation. (See Doc. 48.) She 5 || argues that the corporation was never served with the motion for default judgment, and that 6 || without proper notice, the resulting default judgment is unenforceable. (Doc. 150 at 4-5.) 7 Plaintiff correctly notes (Doc. 163), Defendant has not filed a motion to vacate the 8 || default judgment. Accordingly, the issue is not properly before the Court. 9 Nevertheless, the Court briefly addresses Defendant’s argument. Applications for 10 default judgment are governed by Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. 11 ||See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). For a court to grant default judgment, the plaintiff must 12 |/establish that: (1) the defendant has been served with the summons and complaint and 13 default was entered for their failure to appear; (2) the defendant is neither a minor nor an 14 incompetent person; (3) the defendant is not in military service or not otherwise subject to 15 ||the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; and (4) if the defendant has appeared in the action, 16 || that the defendant was provided with notice of the application for default judgment at least 17 ||seven days prior to the hearing. See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 3931; Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Twentieth 18 || Century Fox Film Corp. v. Streeter, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1070 (D. Ariz. 2006). 19 Here, because the S-corporation did not appear in this action, Rule 55(b)(2) did not 20 || require service of notice of the application for default judgment. The docket also reflects 21 the S-Corporation was properly served with the summons and complaint. (Doc. 24.) 22 Therefore, Ms. Schaedler-Moore has not established the grounds required for 23 || reconsideration (newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law.) Sch. 24 || Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 25 || Accordingly, reconsideration is DENIED. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. I f [pe Dorn 27 || Dated: March 2, 2026 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 28 United States District Judge