Mongkol Muay Thai Corporation v. JG (Thailand) Company Limited
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Mongkol Muay Thai Corporation requested entry of default against Defendant JG (Thailand) Company Limited after missing a court-ordered deadline to file such a request. The court denied the request without prejudice, citing the plaintiff's failure to show good cause for its noncompliance with the prior Order to Show Cause.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Request for Entry of Default Denied Without Prejudice“Accordingly, Mongkol’s Request for Entry of Default is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a renewed filing that is supported by facts showing good cause justified Mongkol’s noncompliance with the Second Order to Show Cause.” | agree with court The court correctly applied its inherent authority and Rule 41(b) principles to enforce its own deadlines. The plaintiff missed the deadline set by the Second Order to Show Cause and the subsequent extension granted by the court. The plaintiff's subsequent motion to substitute counsel did not request an extension of the default deadline, and the plaintiff failed to file the default request or a new extension by the deadline. The court's refusal to overlook this noncompliance without a showing of good cause is consistent with federal procedural law and the need to maintain court order compliance. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It accurately recites the procedural history, including the Second Order to Show Cause, the granted extension, and the plaintiff's failure to meet the final deadline. It correctly identifies that the motion to substitute counsel did not extend the deadline for the default request. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Ferdik) to support the proposition that failure to comply with court orders is a basis for adverse action, including dismissal, thereby justifying the denial of the default request without a showing of good cause. The denial without prejudice is a reasonable and standard remedy that allows the plaintiff to cure the defect by showing good cause.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONGKOL MUAY THAI Case No. 22-cv-0506-BAS-KSC CORPORATION, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, 13 PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR v. ENTRY OF DEFAULT 14 JG (THAILAND) COMPANY LIMITED, 15 (ECF No. 11) Defendant. 16 18 On January 25, 2023, this Court entered its second Order to Show Cause for Plaintiff 19 Mongkol Muay Thai Corporation (“Mongkol”)’s failure to prosecute the instant action. 20 (Second Order to Show Cause (“Second OSC”).) It instructed Mongkol could show cause 21 either by filing a request for entry of default or by requesting an extension to do so on or 22 before February 6, 2023. (Id.) On February 6, 2023, Mongkol sought an extension to file 23 an entry of default until March 10, 2023 (ECF No. 7), which this Court granted the next 24 day (ECF No. 8). On February 28, 2023, Mongkol moved to substitute its attorney. (ECF 25 No. 9.) That motion did not contain a request to extend Mongkol’s deadline to file a request 26 for entry of default. (Id.) March 10, 2023 came and went, yet Mongkol neither filed a 27 request for entry of default nor an application for an extension of time to do so. 28 1 Now, on March 22, 2023, nearly two weeks removed from the deadline set forth in 2 ||this Court’s February 7, 2023 Order, Mongkol requests an entry of default against 3 || Defendant JG (Thailand) Company Limited. (ECF No. 11.) The request appends two 4 ||declarations (ECF Nos. 11-1, 11-2), neither of which contain attestations justifying 5 ||Mongkol’s failure to comply with the Second Order to Show Cause. Mongkol is not 6 || entitled to this Court simply overlooking its noncompliance with court-ordered deadlines. 7 || Indeed, Mongkol’s failure to abide by the Second Order to Show Cause constitutes a basis 8 || for dismissal in and of itself. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), 9 ||as amended (May 22, 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the 10 || district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”’). 11 Accordingly, Mongkol’s Request for Entry of Default is DENIED WITHOUT 12 || PREJUDICE to a renewed filing that is supported by facts showing good cause justified 13 || Mongkol’s noncompliance with the Second Order to Show Cause. 14 IT IS SO ORDERD / 15 || DATED: March 23, 2023 ( yi A (Hiphan 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28