MillerKnoll, Inc. v. Sohnne, Inc.
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:25-cv-03320
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In MillerKnoll v. Sohnne, Judge Westmore scheduled a hearing on setting aside default, vacated the default-judgment hearing, and encouraged discussions to resolve the default issue.
MillerKnoll, Inc. and the other plaintiffs, whose default-judgment hearing was vacated, and Sohnne, Inc. and the other defendants, whose motion to set aside entry of default was scheduled for hearing.
What happened
In MillerKnoll, Inc. v. Sohnne, Inc., the plaintiffs had asked for a default judgment, and the court had scheduled a September 18, 2025 hearing. The defendants later appeared through lawyers and filed a motion asking the court to set aside the entry of default.
The court scheduled the defendants’ motion for a hearing on October 2, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. It vacated the September 18 hearing on the plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion, to be reset if necessary, and kept all briefing deadlines in place.
The court did not decide either motion. Judge Andis A. Westmore noted the preference for deciding cases on their merits and encouraged the parties to discuss a stipulation setting aside the entry of default.
The detailed version
- MillerKnoll, Inc. v. Sohnne, Inc. · No. 3:25-cv-03320
- Kandis Westmore
- Aug. 28, 2025
Background
On July 25, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment. The motion had been set for a September 18, 2025 hearing. The defendants then appeared through counsel and filed a motion to set aside the entry of default.
Order
The court set the motion to set aside entry of default for hearing on October 2, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. It vacated the September 18, 2025 hearing on the motion for default judgment, stating that the hearing could be reset if necessary. The court left all briefing deadlines in effect.
Reasoning and effect
The court cited the strong preference for resolving cases on their merits and explained that default judgment is appropriate only in extreme circumstances. It encouraged the parties to meet and confer about a stipulation setting aside the entry of default to conserve judicial resources.
This order did not grant or deny the motion to set aside entry of default or the motion for default judgment. It addressed hearing scheduling and encouraged discussions between the parties.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.