Important Change to our 30-day Money Back Guarantee ************************************** Due to the increasing allegations of fraudulent purchase transactions involving documents specifically designated for the purposes of litigation in eviction and/or unlawful detainer proceedings, we have been forced into choosing whether to continue offering such documents at all to ANYONE, or to declare that they are NON-REFUNDABLE, and are no longer covered by the 30-day money-back guarantee. ************************************** Consequently we have decided that as of March 16, 2024 at 1:00 am, PDT any single document specifically listed in the Eviction Defense Collection is hereby NON-REFUNDABLE. To determine if one or more of your proposed documents are NON-REFUNDABLE you will need to review the list of single documents found within the description for the Eviction Defense Collection. ************************************** In the meantime, we will be updating the individual file listings for all such affected documents. ************************************** HOWEVER, YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED!

Opposing a Rule 55(c) motion to vacate a default in United States District Court

by Stan Burman

Opposing a Rule 55(c) motion to vacate a default in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post.

Opposing a Rule 55(c) motion to vacate a default in United States District Court requires that any opposition documents be served and filed at least seven (7) calendar days before the hearing unless a Local Rule or order of the Court states otherwise pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(c)(2).

If you have been served with a Rule 55(c) motion to vacate default you should carefully review the motion and all supporting documents to determine what grounds exist for an opposition. 

Common grounds for opposing a Rule 55(c) motion to vacate a default in United States District Court are that the moving party has failed to show good cause in that:

(1) Culpable conduct by the moving party resulted in the default;

(2) No meritorious defenses to the lawsuit are presented, and  

(3) Plaintiffs would suffer prejudice if the default were vacated.

In a published decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that Rule 55(c) permits the Court to set aside an entry of default only for good cause, and that the defaulting parties have the burden of proving good cause.

Several published decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeal including but not limited to, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have stated that the moving party must show good cause for the default, diligence in seeking relief and a meritorious defense otherwise the Court has the discretion to deny the motion.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that in order to determine whether good cause exists, courts consider (1) whether the default is the result of the defaulting party's culpable conduct; (2) whether the defaulting party has a meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default would prejudice the innocent party.  

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has also stated that the test for good cause is disjunctive, and the defaulting party must prove all three factors favor setting the default aside and if any one factor favors upholding the default, the Court need not set it aside.

Sample opposition for opposing a Rule 55(c) motion to vacate a default in United States District Court for sale.

Attorneys or parties who would like to view a portion of a 12 page sample opposition for opposing a Rule 55(c) motion to vacate a default in United States District Court containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail sold by the author can see below.

Sample Opposition to Rule 55(c) Motion to Vacate Default in United States District Court by Stan Burman on Scribd

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.

Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/  for more information.

Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/legaldocspro

Follow Stan Burman on Google Plus at:

https://plus.google.com/+StanBurman

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

Back to Blog from LegalDocsPro