Lindblad

BACKGROUND

26 Defendants’ motion to set aside default presents two arguments. First, defendants assert that 27 of Default. Dkt. No. 38. Second, defendants argue that—assuming service was complete previously—their failure to submit a timely response was due to honest mistake and confusion. Id. This is not the first time that defendants remark on alleged deficiencies in plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint. In a case management statement filed one week prior to a scheduled initial case management conference, defendants stated that they

6 have not been served and the documents were not appropriately forwarded to legal counsel until November 2, 2021 and did not reach the assigned attorney until mid-November. The undersigned has reached out to the U.S. Marshall service regarding correction of service but personal service has not yet been effectuated. In order to prevent more complication on this matter, Defendants propose acceptance of service as of November 23, 2021 and setting Defendants’ answer date as December 15, 2021. Dkt. No. 24 at 6 (filed November 24, 2021). The Court held the initial case…