Filho v. Chinatown Community Development Center, Inc.
3:21-cv-05664-WHO
| N.D. Cal. | Dec 9, 2021Background
- Filho (pro se) sued CCDC and an individual under the Fair Housing Act alleging denial of a reasonable-accommodation transfer to a one‑bedroom due to disabilities (TBI, HIV, bladder/prostate damage).
- CCDC is a California nonprofit with a publicly registered agent for service (Calvin Ho); U.S. Marshals returns were filed that listed a person named "Loktin Law" but left key boxes blank and did not indicate personal or substituted service.
- CCDC contends it never received the summons and complaint, that the person listed was not an authorized agent, and that the Marshal did not exercise reasonable diligence or complete substituted‑service steps (mailing).
- Filho moved for default judgment after the Clerk entered default; CCDC moved to set aside the default and said it is prepared to defend on the merits.
- The court found service appeared improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and applicable California substituted‑service standards, denied Filho’s motion for default judgment, set aside the clerk’s entry of default, and terminated CCDC’s pending motion as moot.
- The court deemed CCDC served with Filho’s amended complaint (filed Dec. 9, 2021) and set a Jan. 5, 2022 deadline for responsive pleadings from defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of service on the corporation | Filho: U.S. Marshals legally served CCDC on Sep 23, 2021 | CCDC: returns were incomplete; Marshals did not serve the registered agent; person served was not authorized | Service was apparently improper under Rule 4(h) and California law |
| Entitlement to default judgment | Filho: CCDC failed to timely answer; default judgment appropriate | CCDC: not properly served; is ready to defend; judgment disfavored | Default judgment denied; defaults disfavored and not automatic |
| Setting aside entry of default | (implicit) Default should remain since Clerk entered it | CCDC: good cause to set aside because of inadequate service and ability to defend | Entry of default set aside for good cause; CCDC’s motion to set aside is moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (default judgments are disfavored; merits should decide cases when possible)
- PepsiCo v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 431 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (granting default judgment is within court's discretion and is not automatic)