# Hartman

> District Court, N.D. California · March 18, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369553

## Case

- **Full name:** Eric F. Hartman v. Koshy P. George, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** March 18, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369553

## Opinion text

1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5 SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7 ERIC F. HARTMAN, Case No. 5:25-cv-09816-BLF

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SET
9 v. ASIDE DEFAULT

10 KOSHY P. GEORGE, et al., [Re: ECF No. 36]
11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court is a motion by Defendant County of Santa Clara, who states that it has
13 been erroneously sued as Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office (“DAO”), to set aside
14 default. ECF No. 36 (“Mot.”); ECF No. 44 (“Reply”). Pro se Plaintiff Eric Hartman filed an
15 untimely opposition to the motion. ECF No. 43 (“Opp.”). The Court VACATES the hearing set
16 for April 30, 2026, because the matter is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Civ.
17 L.R. 7-1(b). The motion is GRANTED.
18 On December 18, 2025, Mr. Hartman filed a returned and executed summons indicating
19 that the summons, complaint, and civil cover sheet were delivered by hand on Dina Garcia on
20 November 26, 2025. ECF No. 14. He requested entry of default as to DAO the same day. ECF
21 No. 18. On December 22, 2025, the Clerk entered default against DAO. ECF No. 16. On
22 January 12, 2026, counsel for DAO contacted Mr. Hartman (who is an attorney representing
23 himself) by email and asked if he would withdraw his default request, and he did not respond. See
24 ECF No. 36-1 (“Burg Decl.”) ¶ 2.
25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), “[t]he court may set aside an entry of default
26 for good cause.” Good cause is established when the defendant demonstrates that (1) the default
27 was not the result of culpable conduct, (2) the defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3) setting
1 v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 697 (9th Cir. 2001). Although the same test governs motions to set
2 || aside entry of default and motions for relief from final default judgment under Federal Rule of
3 Civil Procedure 60, the test is “more liberally applied in the Rule 55(c) context.” United States
4 || v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010).
5 DAO has demonstrated good cause. First, as here, where “a defendant’s conduct was not
6 ‘culpable,’ then her failure to respond to a lawsuit is ordinarily ‘excusable.’” Maciel Builders LLC
7 || v. US Framing Int’l LLC, No. 19-cv-03660-BLF, 2020 WL 553942, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020)
8 (citation omitted). DAO reasonably believed that it was not properly served because Ms. Garcia
9 || was not authorized to accept service of summons. See Twin Rivers Eng’g, Inc. v. Fieldpiece
10 || Jnstruments, Inc., No. 16-cv-04502-BRO-MRWkx, 2016 WL 7479368, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10,
11 2016). This is because the Board of Supervisors has designated the Clerk of the Board as the
12 || official responsible for receiving and filing on behalf of the Board. See Cal. Gov. Code
13 §§ 25100.5, 25101; County Charter, art. II § 200; County Ordinance Code tit. A, div. A5, ch. II
14 § A5-18. In any case, there is no indication here that DAO acted in bad faith. Cf Mesle, 615 F.3d
15 at 1092.
A 16 Second, the Court concludes that DAO’s defense that it is not a proper defendant because
17 || itis a department of the County clears the “minimal” burden in establishing a meritorious defense.
Zz 18 || Mesle, 615 F.3d at 1094. Third, in the absence of any opposition or evidence to the contrary, the
19 || Court finds no prejudice to Mr. Hartman from setting aside the default. Even if the Court were to
20 || consider Mr. Hartman’s untimely opposition, his argument that he would be prejudiced by
21 “violat[ion] [of his] procedural right to enforcement” is unpersuasive. Opp. at 5.
22 Additionally, Mr. Hartman is advised that briefs and other filed papers must be double-
23 spaced in compliance with the Court’s local rules. See Civ. L.R. 3-4(c)(2). Future noncompliant
24 || filings will be stricken from the docket. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
25 || that DAO’s motion is GRANTED. This order terminates ECF No. 18 and ECF No. 36.
26 Dated: March 18, 2026

ETH LABSON FREEMAN
28 United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369553. Public record. Not legal advice.