Szanto

Szanto v. Bank of New York

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 20233:22-cv-01857California716 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

facts[,] (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. “The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). Through the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the amount of $51,402 (representing lost rental income of $3,000 per month from November 2021, until February 2023, and the $402 filing fee for opening this action) and an order striking from the San Diego County Recorder’s records the May 15, 2020 Assignment of Trust Deed, (see ECF No. 13 at 62); November 15, 2022 Notice of Trustee’s Sale, (see ECF No. 13 at 7); and November 9, 2021 Notice of Default, (see ECF No. 13 at 9). (See generally Mot. at 3–4.) A prerequisite for default judgment, however, is proper service of the summons and complaint on the defendant. See e.g., Chambers v. Knight, No. 18-CV-02906-BAS- BGS, 2019 WL…

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.