The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LAMONT HARPER, No. 2:25-cv-03700-DC-SCR
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
15 REHABILITATION, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17
18
19 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant
20 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the Court is Defendant Nicholas
21 Flesuras’ motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of default. ECF No. 24. The court finds good cause
22 and will GRANT the motion.
23 I. Background and Procedural History
24 Plaintiff filed this action on December 23, 2025, alleging claims under Title VII of the
25 Civil Rights Act, as codified under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., against four defendants: 1) the
26 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”); 2) Kenneth Piva, a
27 Correctional Sergeant; 3) the Merit Appeals Division of the State Personnel Board (“SPB”); and
28 4) Nicholas Flesuras, an Associate Governmental Program Analyst with the California Civil
1 Rights Department. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff filed a return of service claiming to have served
2 Flesuras by serving an authorized agent on February 4, 2026. ECF No. 4
3 Defendants CDCR and Piva filed a motion to dismiss on February 25, 2026. ECF No. 6.
4 CDCR and Piva argued failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and in the alternative
5 requested a more definite statement. Id. at 2. On March 6, 2026, the SPB moved to dismiss
6 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and argued that it is not an “employer” under
7 Title VII for the purposes of this claim because Plaintiff has sued CDCR as his potential
8 employer. ECF No. 10-1 at 2. As to the remaining defendant, Flesuras, Plaintiff filed a request
9 for entry of default. ECF No. 8. The Clerk entered default against Flesuras on March 10, 2026.
10 ECF No. 13. Plaintiff also filed a request for entry of default against SPB, but that request was
11 received on the same day, and shortly after, the SPB had filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 12.
12 The Clerk denied that request. ECF No. 14.
13 On April 9, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss. That same day,
14 Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment as to Flesuras. ECF Nos. 19 & 21. On April 28,
15 2026, Flesuras filed a motion to vacate the clerk’s entry of default. ECF No. 24. On May 8,
16 2026, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) that the motions to dismiss be
17 granted and Plaintiff be granted leave to amend. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff did not file an opposition
18 to the motion to vacate the entry of default, and it was submitted without oral argument on May
19 26, 2026. ECF No. 29. Judge Coggins adopted the F&R, and Plaintiff was allowed to file an
20 amended complaint, which he did on August 17, 2026.
21 II. Analysis
22 The F&R issued May 8, 2026, which has now been adopted, recommended that the
23 motion for default judgment against Flesuras be denied. ECF No. 27 at 8-9. In so doing, the
24 Court stated that the original complaint failed to state a claim against Flesuras. Id. at 9. Given
25 that the motion for default judgment has been denied, and that there is a new operative complaint,
26 the clerk’s entry of default is now essentially moot. It cannot serve as the basis for a default
27 judgment. To the extent the motion is not moot, Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Pursuant to
28 Local Rule 230(c), failure to file a timely opposition may be construed by the Court as non-
1 | opposition to the motion.
2 Rule 55(c) provides that the Court may set aside an entry of default for good cause. Fed.
3 || R. Civ. P. 55(c). The Court’s discretion to set aside the entry of default is “especially broad
4 || where, as here, it is entry of default that is being set aside, rather than a default judgment.”
5 || Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1986). Flesuras offers as good
6 || cause that he was not properly served, that he acted promptly after learning of the default, and
7 || that he has a meritorious defense. ECF No. 24 at 3. That Flesuras had a meritorious defense is
8 | established by the fact the Court found the original complaint failed to state a claim as to him. As
9 || to culpable conduct, Flesuras’ declaration that he did not have notice of the lawsuit until after the
10 | entry of default is unrebutted. ECF No. 24-1. There is no prejudice to Plaintiff, as the case is
11 | now proceeding on an amended complaint. The Court finds good cause to set aside the entry of
12 | default. See Mendoza, 783 F.2d at 946 (affirming the district court’s finding of good cause based
13 | on defendants’ confusion regarding service, the existence of a meritorious defense, and the
14 | absence of prejudice to plaintiffs).
15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Defendant Flesuras’ motion to vacate
16 | clerk’s entry of default (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED.
17 | SOORDERED.
18 || DATED: August 25, 2026 mk
20 SEAN C. RIORDAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28