Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare

Background

Daniel De Oliveira filed numerous motions, letters, and other submissions seeking entry of default against Tenet Healthcare, Valley Baptist Realty Company, LLC, VHS Harlingen Hospital Company, L.L.C., JAMS, Pakis, Giotes, Burleson & Deaconson, P.C., Marcus Mataga, and Judge David L. Evans. A default is a formal entry stating that a defendant failed to respond on time, which can be a step toward a default judgment.

The court had granted the defendants extensions to answer or otherwise respond. Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted extensions for Tenet, Valley Baptist, and VHS, and other defendants also received extensions. The defendants then filed motions to dismiss by the applicable deadlines. De Oliveira argued that the Clerk was required to enter defaults under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), that the judges lacked authority to grant extensions after deadlines had passed, and that the extensions were invalid without his consent.

De Oliveira also argued that requests for admission served in this case and in earlier Texas litigation created binding admissions. The court explained that the Texas litigation had been stayed and that De Oliveira had not shown the defendants were required to answer those requests. Requests for admission in these cases were also improper because the cases were stayed and discovery had not begun. Judge Broderick had previously told De Oliveira that he could not serve such requests until the discovery phase.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Gary Stein denied De Oliveira’s various motions for entry of default and related requests. The Clerk was not required or authorized to enter defaults because the defendants’ response deadlines had been extended. Once the extensions were granted, the defendants were no longer in default. The court also held that the court had discretion to grant extensions, including after an original deadline had expired, and rejected De Oliveira’s arguments that the extensions required his consent or compliance with the procedure for setting aside an existing default.

The court further rejected De Oliveira’s claimed “doctrine of immortalized adjudicated issues” and “De Oliveira doctrine,” stating that no such legal doctrine exists. It also rejected requests and arguments unrelated to entry of default as meritless. The Clerk was asked to close the listed motions. Judge Stein gave De Oliveira one final opportunity to stop the filing conduct described as vexatious, frivolous, and duplicative, warning that continued conduct of that kind could result in sanctions.