Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc.

559 F.3d 922

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-03-11
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • noting that Rules 55(a) and (b) provide a two- 28 step process for obtaining a default judgment
  • noting that Rules 55(a) and (b) provide a two-step process for obtaining a default judgment
  • noting that Rules 55(a) and (b) provide a two- 12 step process for obtaining a default judgment
  • denying plaintiffs motion for default judgment because 7
  • the clerk had not yet entered a default
  • noting “the two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default 18 Judgment’ ”
  • noting the two-step process under Rule 55 of entering default and then entering a default 3 judgment
  • noting the two-step process under Rule 55 of entering default and then entering a 8 default judgment

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
58 opinions
SYMANTEC CORP. v. GLOBAL IMPACT,559 F.3d 922(9th Cir. 2009)
SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLOBAL IMPACT, INC., a
Florida Corporation doing business as www.global-impact.com, Global
Impact, Global Impact, Inc. Distribution, and Global Impact Corporation;
Joseph Cristina, an individual, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 07-56758.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 4, 2009.fn*
Filed March 11, 2009.
Page 923
Lorne Adam Kaiser, Romanello Professional Association, Sunrise, FL, for appellants Joseph Christina and Global Impact, Inc.

Mark D. Baute, Patrick M. Maloney, and Henry H. Gonzalez, Baute Tidus LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for appellee Symantec Corporation.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-07-00126-DMS.
Before: DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, PAMELA ANN RYMER, and KIM McLANE WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Global Impact, Inc. ("Global") appeals the district court's orders denying its motions to set aside the entry of default and reconsider the same. The clerk entered default against Global when it failed to plead or otherwise defend the adversary proceeding brought by Symantec Corporation. We dismiss because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Although neither party raised the issue of our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, we have a duty to consider it sua sponte.SeeGupta v. Thai Airways Int'l, Ltd.,487 F.3d 759,763(9th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Global's assertions, the district court has not entered a defaultjudgmentagainst it; it has entered only a default.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.55(a)-(b) (describing the two-step process of "Entering a Default" and "Entering a Default Judgment"). Whereas we have jurisdiction to review a district court's order denying a motion to set aside the entry of a default judgment,see28 U.S.C. § 1291;Jeff D. v.Kempthorne,365 F.3d 844,849-50(9th Cir. 2004), we lack jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside the entry of default alone,see Haw. Carpenters' Trust Funds v. Stone,794 F.2d 508,512(9th Cir. 1986) (entry of default is not a final appealable order);Bakerv. Limber,647 F.2d 912,916(9th Cir. 1981) (same). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.1DISMISSED.Page 924
  1. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2). ↩
  2. Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we express no opinion on the merits of the district court's orders. ↩