(PS) James v. Sacramento County

facts, (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 11 Id. at 1471–72. With respect to the possibility plaintiff will be prejudiced, plaintiff argues “[i]t was believed that the two Defendant’s [sic] conceded to the Law Suit [sic], and no further investigation would be necessary.” (Doc. No. 116 at 3.) However, because plaintiff had not sought or obtained entry of default or default judgments against either defendant Meier or Parker, this purported belief on plaintiff’s part was unfounded. Plaintiff also argues it is unfair that discovery has closed in this action. (Id.) Plaintiff had ample opportunity to pursue discovery on defendants Meier and Parker prior to close of discovery. Indeed, this action was initiated by plaintiff over seven years ago and under the court’s scheduling order discovery closed as of May 20, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 1, 53.) Therefore, plaintiff has not demonstrated he will be prejudiced by the failure of defendants Meier and Parker to timely file their answers. Nor has plaintiff 22 …