Aragon v. Experian Data Corporation

- 1 - 25cv0814
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DANIEL ARAGON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-0814-BAS-SBC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 17)
Presently before the Court is Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s
motion to set aside default judgment and extend time for a responsive pleading. (ECF No.
17.) The Court finds this Motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion to aside default judgment.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2025, the Clerk of Court issued a summons for Plaintiff Daniel
Aragon’s first amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff returned the executed summons
on October 27, 2025. (ECF No. 13.) On November 13, 2025, Plaintiff requested an entry
of default against Defendant, which the Clerk of Court issued. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) Shortly
Case 3:25-cv-00814-BAS-SBC Document 21 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

- 2 - 25cv0814
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 16.) That same day,
Defendant filed a motion to set aside default and extend time for a responsive pleading.
(ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff responded in opposition. (ECF No. 18.) Defendant then filed an
answer to Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff submitted a motion to
strike Defendant’s answer. (ECF No. 20.)
II. 	ANALYSIS
Failure to defend a properly served complaint allows entry of default. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(a). But under Rule 55(c), the court “may set aside an entry of default for good cause.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).
The court’s good cause analysis considers the three “Falk factors”: “(1) whether the
plaintiff will be prejudiced, (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3)
whether culpable conduct of the defendant led to the default.” Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins.
Co. of Fla., 653 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463
(9th Cir. 1984)).
“Where timely relief is sought from a default . . . doubt, if any, should be resolved
in favor of the motion to set aside the [default] so that cases may be decided on their
merits.” Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945–46 (9th Cir. 1986)
(quotation omitted); see also Falk, 739 F.2d at 463 (“[J]udgment by default is a drastic step
appropriate only in extreme circumstances; a case should, whenever possible, be decided
on the merits.”).
The “party seeking to vacate a default judgment bears the burden of demonstrating
that these factors favor vacating the judgment.” TCI Grp. Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244
F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001) (overruled on other grounds by Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel.
Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (2001)).
Here, Defendant’s failure to timely reply was due to a federal holiday and error by
counsel and counsel’s staff. Defendant’s deadline to respond to the first amended complaint
fell on November 11, 2025, which coincided with the federal holiday Veteran’s Day. (Mot.
¶ 7, ECF No. 17.) Defendant further alleges that its lead counsel fell ill on November 10,
Case 3:25-cv-00814-BAS-SBC Document 21 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

- 3 - 25cv0814
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2025, and that a paralegal was absent. (Mot. ¶ 8.) This delay does not rise to the level of
culpable conduct. As discussed in Plaintiff’s opposition, the Court acknowledges that
Experian is a corporation, but even so, Plaintiff will not be hindered from pursuing his
claim. This case is just beginning. As Plaintiff’s brief recognizes, a prejudicial setting aside
of an entry of default judgment “must result in greater harm than simply delaying
resolution.” (Opp’n 3:7–10, ECF No. 18.) Given the lack of prejudice, early stage of the
litigation, and preference to decide cases on the merits, the Court grants the motion to set
aside default judgment.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	Defendant’s 	motion 	to 	set 	aside 	default
judgement. (ECF No. 17.) The Court directs the Clerk of Court to withdraw the entry of
default. The Court further TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to extend
time, given that Defendant preemptively filed its answer. (ECF Nos. 17, 19.) The Court
also TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer. (ECF
No. 20.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 25, 2025
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:25-cv-00814-BAS-SBC Document 21 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3