Eleganze Auto Paint & Bodyworks, Inc. v. Maaco Enterprises

Good Law
14 F. App'x 992
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 2001No. 00-55404; D.C. No. CV-97-828-GLTCalifornia350 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Eleganze Auto Paint and Bodyworks, Inc. (“Eleganze”) appeals from an order granting default judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b), in favor of Defendant-Appellee Maaco Enterprises (“Maaco”). The default judgment was entered on a claim to enforce a settlement agreement between Eleganze and Maaco. Eleganze appeals from the judgment on the following grounds: (1) no responsive pleading was required to Maaco’s claim to enforce the settlement agreement; and if it were required, Eleganze displayed excusable neglect; and (2) the judgment is void because an incomplete settlement agreement is unenforceable. We affirm.

The court’s decision to enter a default judgment was not an abuse of discretion. The record supports the following findings: (1) the district court had specifically instructed both parties to file pleadings before a status conference; (2) Maaco designated its pleading as a “Claim to Enforce Settlement Agreement” in compliance with the district judge’s instruction; (3) Eleganze actually received Maaco’s pleading before the conference; (4) Eleganze failed to respond until a month after the conference; (5) there was no excusable neglect,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.