Jorge O. Almada Nagy; Woodex v. Retail Capital LLC dba Credibly; Credibly of Arizona LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered Defendants' application for entry of default against Plaintiffs Jorge O. Almada Nagy and Woodex, noting that Woodex, a legal entity, had failed to retain counsel despite multiple warnings. The court entered default against both plaintiffs, directed the Clerk to strike their non-compliant Answer, and ordered Defendants to file a motion for default judgment by April 22, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Entry of default against Plaintiffs Jorge O. Almada Nagy and Woodex“Upon review of the Application for Entry of Default and the supporting declaration, the Court hereby enters default against Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Nagy and Woodex.” | agree with court The court correctly applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and Civil Local Rule 83.3.j. Woodex is a legal entity that cannot appear pro se, and the court had previously warned the plaintiffs of the consequences of non-compliance. Entering default is a standard procedural remedy for failure to plead or prosecute a case after adequate notice. |
Striking of the Answer filed by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 34)“Thus, the Answer filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Woodex and Nagy (ECF No 34) in this case does not comply with the rules; the Clerk of Court is therefore DIRECTED to strike it from the docket without prejudice as noncompliant.” | agree with court Because Woodex cannot appear pro se, any filing made by or on behalf of Woodex without an attorney is procedurally defective. Striking the answer is consistent with the local rule prohibiting unrepresented legal entities from appearing in court. |
Ordering Defendants to file a Motion for Default Judgment by April 22, 2026“To the extent that Defendants and Counterclaimants Retail Capital LLC intend to file a Motion for Default Judgment, the Court ORDERS them to do so specifying and supporting the relief requested on or before April 22, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard case management directive following the entry of default, ensuring the case moves forward to judgment or is dismissed for lack of prosecution by the moving party. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal entity's inability to proceed pro se, cites the appropriate local rule and federal rule, and notes that the court had previously provided warnings and opportunities to cure the defect. The decision to enter default and strike the answer follows logically from the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the court's orders and the rules of procedure.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JORGE O. ALMADA NAGY; Case No.: 23cv537-LL-BLM WOODEX, 9 ORDER ENTERING APPLICATION Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants, 10 FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT v. 11 [ECF No. 58] RETAIL CAPITAL LLC dba Credibly; 12 CREDIBLY OF ARIZONA LLC, 13 Defendants and Counterclaimants. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Defendants and Counterclaimants Retail Capital LLC’s 17 Application for Entry of Default against Jorge O. Almada Nagy and Woodex and the 18 declaration in support thereof from Steven Soloway. ECF No. 58. Upon review of the 19 Application for Entry of Default and the supporting declaration, the Court hereby enters 20 default against Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Nagy and Woodex. 21 The Court has already cautioned Plaintiffs that Plaintiff Woodex cannot proceed 22 without counsel. ECF Nos. 52, 53. The Civil Local Rules provide that “[o]nly natural 23 persons representing their individual interests in propria persona may appear in court 24 without representation by an attorney . . . . All other parties, including corporations, 25 partnerships, and other legal entities, may appear in court only through an attorney 26 permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.” Civ.L.R. 83.3.j. To date in this 27 case, the Court has directed and given Plaintiff Woodex multiple warnings and an 28 opportunity to obtain new counsel, which Plaintiff Woodex has failed to do. See Docket. 1 || The Court has also cautioned Plaintiffs Woodex and Nagy that failure to comply with its 2 || Orders may result in dismissal of this action and/or default judgment. ECF Nos. 52, 53; see 3 Crandall v. Semillon Inc., No. 15cv1257-GPC (NLS), 2016 WL 4479397, at *2 (S.D. 4 Aug. 25, 2016) (‘When a corporation fails to retain counsel to represent it in an action, 5 ||its answer may be stricken and a default judgment entered against it.””); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 ||55(a). Thus, the Answer filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Woodex and Nagy (ECF No 34) in 7 || this case does not comply with the rules; the Clerk of Court is therefore DIRECTED to 8 || strike it from the docket without prejudice as noncompliant. See Civ.L.R. 83.3.j. Plaintiffs 9 ||and Counter-Defendants Nagy and Woodex have failed to obtain counsel and have failed 10 ||to comply with the Court’s Orders in this case. See, e.g., ECF No. 54.! 11 To the extent that Defendants and Counterclaimants Retail Capital LLC intend to 12 || file a Motion for Default Judgment, the Court ORDERS them to do so specifying and 13 || supporting the relief requested on or before April 22, 2026. Failure to do so may result in 14 ||a waiver of Defendants and Counterclaimants’ claims. 15 | IS SO ORDERED. NO 16 || Dated: March 27, 2026 DE | 17 Honorable Linda Lopez 8 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 ||! The Court has already dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff and Counter-Defendants’ 28 claims brought in the Second Operative Complaint in their entirety. ECF No. 54.