Greenspan v. Qazi
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-03426
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Greenspan v. Qazi, Judge Donato lifted Qazi and Smick’s default, denied Greenspan’s new default request, and ordered civility compliance.
Aaron Jacob Greenspan, Omar Qazi, Smick Enterprises, and the other parties and attorneys in the case were affected by the default ruling and civility directives.
What happened
In Greenspan v. Qazi, Aaron Jacob Greenspan sought default against Omar Qazi and Smick Enterprises after alleged failures to respond to successive complaints. The clerk entered default on the original complaint, but did not enter default on the amended complaint.
Qazi and Smick asked the court to lift the default, citing confusion about service and their efforts to hire a lawyer. The court lifted the existing default and denied Greenspan’s request for another entry of default. It also barred future default applications without the court’s prior approval.
Judge Donato said the parties and their lawyers must follow the court’s civility and professionalism guidelines. He warned that violations could lead to sanctions, including limits on claims or defenses, exclusion of evidence, fees and costs, professional discipline, or dismissal.
The detailed version
- Greenspan v. Qazi · No. 3:20-cv-03426
- James Donato
- Sept. 2, 2020
Background
Aaron Jacob Greenspan, who was representing himself, sued Omar Qazi and Smick Enterprises, among others. The case involved repeated disputes about service of the complaint and requests for default. Greenspan said he served the original complaint on June 7, 2020, and sought a clerk’s entry of default after the defendants did not respond by the date he identified. The clerk initially declined the request because of a defect in the service affidavit, but later entered default at Docket No. 27.
Greenspan filed an amended complaint on July 2, before renewing his request for default on the original complaint. He later sought another entry of default based on the defendants’ alleged failure to respond to the amended complaint. The clerk did not enter default on that amended complaint. On August 26, Greenspan filed a second amended complaint with the agreement of all defendants.
The Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) allows a court to set aside a clerk’s entry of default for good cause. The court explained that the relevant considerations are whether the default resulted from blameworthy conduct, whether the party has a potentially valid defense, and whether setting aside the default would prejudice the other side.
The court concluded that this record did not show dereliction of duty or inexcusable neglect. It noted that the successive amended complaints could have reset the defendants’ response deadlines and that there was no evidence Qazi or Smick acted in bad faith. The court also found that they had been reasonably diligent while addressing service issues and seeking an attorney. In addition, the court found that Qazi and Smick had shown substantive defenses and that Greenspan would not be prejudiced, particularly because he had amended the complaint several times.
Ruling
The court lifted the default entered at Docket No. 27 and denied the request for another entry of default at Docket No. 45. It ordered that no party may file another application for entry of default without the court’s prior approval.
The court also directed all parties and attorneys, including Greenspan, to read and follow the district’s civility and professionalism guidelines. It warned that failing to follow those guidelines could result in sanctions, including claim or defense preclusion, exclusion of evidence, an award of attorney’s fees and costs, professional discipline, or dismissal under Rule 41(b). The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.