RB Capital Partners, Inc. v. Cyberlux Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to strike the defendant's answer and enter default for failure to retain counsel after the defendant failed to appear at a show cause hearing. The court struck the answer, directed the clerk to enter default, and ordered the plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment within thirty days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Answer is stricken.“Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record, the Court strikes Cyberlux’s September 23, 2024 Answer.” | agree with court The court applied the Ninth Circuit precedent allowing the striking of an answer filed by a pro se defendant who fails to retain counsel after being ordered to do so. The record indicates the defendant failed to appear at the show cause hearing and did not respond, supporting the decision to strike the answer to enforce the requirement of representation. |
Default is entered against Defendant.“The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter default against Cyberlux.” | agree with court Entry of default is a ministerial act following the striking of the answer and the defendant's failure to appear or respond to the show cause order. This follows Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). |
Plaintiff is directed to file a motion for default judgment within thirty days.“Plaintiff RB Capital Partners must file a motion for default judgment no later than thirty days from the docketing of this Order.” | agree with court This is a procedural directive consistent with Local Civil Rule 55.1, which typically requires a prompt motion for default judgment after default is entered to prevent dismissal of the action. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly cites binding Ninth Circuit authority regarding the striking of answers by pro se defendants who fail to retain counsel. The procedural steps (show cause, failure to appear, striking answer, entry of default) are standard and supported by the cited rules and cases. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this procedural matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RB CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., a Case No.: 24-cv-1434-AJB-BJW California Corporation, 12 ORDER STRIKING ANSWER AND Plaintiff, DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER 13 v. DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT 14 CYBERLUX CORPORATION CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a Nevada 15 Corporation, Defendant. 16 17 18 On March 27, 2026, the Court ordered Defendant Cyberlux to show cause why the 19 Court should not strike its Answer filed on September 23, 2024 (see Doc. No. 6) and enter 20 default against it for failure to retain counsel. The Court held the show cause hearing on 21 April 9, 2026. (Doc. No. 61.) Cyberlux did not appear at the April 9 Hearing and did not 22 otherwise appropriately respond to the order to show cause. (Id.) Accordingly, for the 23 reasons stated on the record, the Court strikes Cyberlux’s September 23, 2024 Answer. See 24 United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993); see also 25 TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 916 (9th Cir. 1987). The Clerk of Court 26 is DIRECTED to enter default against Cyberlux. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Plaintiff RB 27 Capital Partners must file a motion for default judgment no later than thirty days from 28 the docketing of this Order. See CivLR 55.1. Plaintiff is cautioned that a failure to properly | move for default judgment may result in the Court dismissing this action without prejudice. 2 || See id. 3 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve this Order on Cyberlux at its last known 4 || address: 5 Cyberlux Corportation 6 800 Park Offices Drive Suite 3209 7 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 8 Doc. No. 51-1 4 6.) 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 |}Dated: April 9, 2026 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28