Wilson v. City of Hood River, 3:24-cv-02033

Cameron James Wilson, a pro se plaintiff, sued the City of Hood River and three police officers, alleging Fourth Amendment and other constitutional violations related to his arrest and detention.
Wilson filed his initial complaint in December 2024, served defendants in late December 2024 and early January 2025, and filed an amended complaint on February 3, 2025.
Defendants answered the amended complaint later the same day it was filed, but after Wilson filed a motion for entry of default against them.
Wilson also moved to strike the defendants’ answer as untimely, arguing they had not responded within the required time.
The defendants explained their answer was delayed due to a misunderstanding of federal amendment procedures, mistaking them for state court rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entry of Default	Default should be entered due to untimely answer	Delay was unintentional; answer filed promptly upon clarification	Denied: Failure to confer as required, and merits favor answering
Motion to Strike Untimely Answer	Answer should be struck as it was late	Delay was based on procedural misunderstanding, not intentional	Denied: No culpable conduct, no prejudice, meritorious defense
Prejudice from Delay	Has incurred time and expense preparing default motion	Plaintiff’s incurred time is not legal prejudice in this context	Not sufficient to warrant default or strike
Meet and Confer Requirement	Claims to have attempted to confer	Plaintiff did not properly meet and confer under court rules	Motion denied for failure to properly confer

Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538 (9th Cir. 1988) (federal courts strongly prefer resolutions on the merits over defaults)
Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1985) (doubts as to default propriety resolved against default)