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

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-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 | noting that Rules 55(a) and (b) provide a two-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 | noting the two-step process under Rule 55 20 || of entering default and then entering a default judgment | noting “the two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default 5 | Judgment’” | identifying the process of obtaining a default judgement as a “two-step process” 26 requiring both the entry of default and the entry of default judgement | noting “two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’” and citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)-(b) | noting the two-step process under Rule 55 of entering default and then entering a default 17 | judgment | noting the two-step process under Rule 55 of entering default and then entering a default 26 judgment | noting that Rules 55(a) and (b) provide a 1 in determining whether good cause exists: “(1) whether [the party seeking to set aside the default] 2 engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) whether [it] had [no] meritorious defense; 3 or (3 | noting “the two-step process of 19 ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’” | noting “the two-step 28 process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’” | noting the “two- step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’”’ | noting the “two-step process of ‘Entering 11 a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’” | noting “the two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default 28 Judgment’” | noting the “two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’” | noting the “two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’” | noting the “two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’” | noting the “two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering a Default Judgment’” | “Although neither party raised the issue of our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, we have a duty to consider it sua sponte” | “Although neither party raised the issue of our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, we have a duty to consider it sua sponte.” | discussing difference between entry of default and default judgment | discussing difference between entry of default and default judgment | distinguishing entry of default from a default judgment

Citator

Cited by: 31 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

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2). ↩
Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we express no opinion on the merits of the district court's orders. ↩