Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The United States filed an interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1655, naming numerous defendants with potential claims to the disputed funds. Defendant James M. Becker filed crossclaims against additional parties including R&HB Life, LLC, Li Su, Runtao Deng, and Ciya Pet Supply Trade LLC. On August 13, 2026, Becker and several co-defendants jointly moved for the clerk's entry of default against 60 non-appearing defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
The court recognized that obtaining a default judgment is a two-step process: first, entry of default by the clerk under Rule 55(a), which requires a showing that service was properly effectuated under Rule 4; second, a separate motion for default judgment under Rule 55(b). The court cited Ninth Circuit and district court authority confirming that a clerk's entry of default is inappropriate where service was not proper.
The Court’s Holding
Upon review of the docket, the court found that each of the 60 non-appearing defendants had been properly served but had not responded or otherwise appeared in the action. The court noted that many defendants were properly served by publication pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1655, citing United States v. Estate of Swan, 441 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1971), and Baltimore Life Ins. Co. v. Torres, 2021 WL 5450281 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2021), for the proposition that constructive service under § 1655 gives the court jurisdiction over defendants not amenable to personal service where personal service is impracticable.
Accordingly, the court directed the Clerk of Court to enter default against all 60 named defendants, including Kathleen April, Arthur E. Bailey, Brian Burthlong, R&HB Life LLC, Li Su, and numerous other individuals and entities. The order constitutes the first step in the default judgment process; the moving parties must still separately seek entry of default judgment from the court under Rule 55(b).
Key Takeaways
- The court entered default against 60 non-appearing defendants in an interpleader action after confirming proper service, including service by publication under 28 U.S.C. § 1655.
- Default entry under Rule 55(a) is a prerequisite to, but distinct from, default judgment under Rule 55(b); the moving parties must file a separate motion for judgment.
- Service by publication is proper in interpleader actions where personal service is impracticable and the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1655 are satisfied.
- The court relied on Estate of Swan and Baltimore Life Insurance to affirm jurisdiction over defendants served constructively in interpleader actions.
- The order lists all 60 defaulted defendants by name, including individuals and business entities.
Why It Matters
This order demonstrates the procedural pathway for securing default against numerous absent claimants in a federal interpleader action, particularly where constructive service by publication is used to establish jurisdiction over defendants who cannot be personally served. The court's reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1655 and supporting precedent confirms that interpleader actions provide a viable mechanism for resolving competing claims to a fund even when many potential claimants are unlocatable.
The ruling also underscores the two-step nature of default practice under Rule 55, requiring separate judicial action for entry of default judgment after the clerk's ministerial entry of default. By directing the clerk to enter default against 60 defendants in a single order, the court efficiently advanced an interpleader proceeding involving numerous absent parties, while preserving the requirement that the moving parties return to the court for the substantive default judgment determination under Rule 55(b).