Whitaker v. Nowrouzi
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-03039
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. Nowrouzi, Judge Gilliam granted Whitaker’s motion, struck defendants’ answer, and entered default after repeated noncompliance.
Zahra Nowrouzi and Rouhollah R. Nowrouzi were affected because the court struck their answer and entered default against them; Brian Whitaker obtained the requested order.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Nowrouzi, Brian Whitaker asked the court to strike the defendants’ answer and enter default. The defendants’ attorney had withdrawn, and the defendants then failed to meet several deadlines, attend a case-management conference, or respond to the court’s order to explain their conduct.
The defendants also did not oppose Whitaker’s motion by the deadline. The court granted the motion, struck the answer filed by Zahra Nowrouzi and Rouhollah R. Nowrouzi, and entered default against both defendants.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. relied on the court’s power to manage its docket and impose sanctions, including default, when parties fail to participate in the case or follow court orders.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Nowrouzi · No. 4:21-cv-03039
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 25, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker moved to strike the defendants’ answer and enter default. The defendants did not file an opposition by the deadline required by the local rules.
The court described a months-long pattern of non-responsiveness after the defendants’ attorney withdrew. The defendants failed to submit settlement-conference statements, which caused the settlement conference to be canceled. They also failed to appear at a case-management conference. The court then ordered them to explain why they should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with court deadlines, but they did not respond.
Ruling
The court granted Whitaker’s motion. Exercising its inherent power to control its docket, the court struck the answer of Zahra Nowrouzi and Rouhollah R. Nowrouzi and entered default against both defendants. The opinion cites the court’s authority to impose sanctions, including default or dismissal, when appropriate, for failure to appear or comply with court orders.
Effect
The order removed the defendants’ answer from the case and entered default against them. The opinion addresses those procedural consequences and does not describe the underlying claims or decide their merits. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.