Lauria v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ANDREA LAURIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
BERT CHRISTOPHER
HEITSTUMAN,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00210-SLG
ORDER
Plaintiff Andrea Lauria filed her complaint in this action on August 26, 2020.1
Ms. Lauria contends that the United States is both directly and vicariously liable
for the actions of a former Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) employee,
Bert Christopher Heitstuman, who Ms. Lauria alleges sexually assaulted, stalked,
and harassed her while acting in his official capacity or within the scope of his
employment.2 Her complaint also asserts state law allegations against Mr.
Heitstuman.3 Ms. Lauria filed proof of service on Mr. Heitstuman with this Court
on July 7, 2021, and Mr. Heitstuman subsequently failed to file a timely answer.4
1 Docket 1 (Compl.).
2 See Docket 25 (Third Amended Compl.).
3 See Docket 25.
4 Docket 30 (Notice of Service); Docket 32 (Min. Order); Docket 34 (Mot. for Entry of Default).
Case 3:20-cv-00210-SLG Document 40 Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20-cv-00210-SLG, Lauria v. United States, et al.
Order
Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, Ms. Lauria moved for entry of default for Mr. Heitstuman on
September 2, 2021, and the Clerk of Court entered the default the following day.5
Mr. Heitstuman filed his answer the same day—September 3, 2021—but after the
default had been entered.6
The Court will treat Mr. Heitstuman’s untimely answer as including an
implied motion to set aside the default.7 Accordingly, Ms. Lauria will have 7 days
from the date of this order to file a response to setting aside the default.
DATED this 8th day of December, 2021 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 Docket 34; Docket 35 (Entry of Default).
6 See Docket 35; Docket 36 (Heitstuman Answer).
7 See McMillen v. J.C. Penney Co., 205 F.R.D. 557, 558 (D. Nev. 2002) (“‘[T]he filing of a late
answer is analogous to a motion to vacate a default,’ because ‘the party filing the late answer
receives “the same opportunity to present mitigating circumstances that [it] would have had if a
default had been entered and [it] had moved under Rule 55(a) to set it aside.”’” (second and third
alterations in original) (quoting John v. Sotheby’s, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 29, 35 (S.D.N.Y. 1992))).
Case 3:20-cv-00210-SLG Document 40 Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 2