Elliot et al v. Spe Terra Nova Apartment Owners LLC et al

- 1 - 24cv447
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
RUSSELL ELLIOT and NELLY
ELLIOT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SPE TERRA NOVA APARTMENT
OWNERS LLC., et. al,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-00447-BAS-JLB
ORDER:
(1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 47)
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT (ECF
No. 56)
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO ENFORCE
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 57)
(4) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CIVIL
CONTEMPT (ECF No. 66)
Case 3:24-cv-00447-BAS-JLB Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

- 2 - 24cv447
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
For the reasons discussed below, the Court 	DENIES 	the captioned motions
submitted by Plaintiffs Russell Elliott and Nelly Elliott (“Plaintiffs”) against Defendants
Spe Terra Nova Apartment Owners LLC, Apartment Management Consultants LLC, and
Monica Flores (“Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 47, 56, 57, 66.)
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Russell Elliot and Nelly Elliott, are a married couple with minor children.
(ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff Russell Elliott suffers from medical disabilities. (ECF No. 61 at
2:6-8.) On March 6, 2024, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint alleging housing
discrimination based on familial status, sex, disability, and national origin and intimidation.
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants incorrectly assumed that their children left
toys on the sidewalk near their apartment complex, where Plaintiffs resided at the time.
(Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs also allege that, as a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs are now
homeless (ECF No. 61 at 2:14-15.) 	Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint
on February 21, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiffs filed subsequent motions, including: (1)
an ex-parte application for default judgment against all Defendants (ECF No. 47); (2) a
motion for more definite statement against Defendant Spe Terra Nova Villas Apartment
Owner LLC (ECF No. 56); (3) motion for enforcement of judgment against (ECF No. 57);
(4) motion to hold Defendant Apartment Management Consultants, LLC in civil contempt
(ECF No. 66). Though the Court is sympathetic to pro se litigants’ challenges of navigating
legal procedure without the aid of legal counsel, the Court denies these motions for the
reasons below.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 47)
Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment against Defendants, alleging that
Defendants failed to file a responsive pleading and should have default judgment entered
against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 55(b). (ECF No. 47.)
However, Defendants have filed an Answer (ECF No. 17). See Morrison v. Mahoney, 399
F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005) (a responsive pleading is “a complaint and answer; a reply
Case 3:24-cv-00447-BAS-JLB Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

- 3 - 24cv447
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
to a counterclaim; an answer to a cross-claim; and a third party complaint and answer[ ]”).
Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 47).
B. 	Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 56)
Plaintiffs filed a motion for more definite statement regarding Defendants’ answer.
(ECF No. 56.) More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to disclose
their corporate structure, which Plaintiffs allege is important for determining who they are
litigating against. (Id. at 4:9–5:13.) However, Rule 12(e) prohibits responsive pleadings
to 	defensive 	matters 	alleged 	in 	answers. 	Balsitis 	v. 	Cnty. 	of 	Orange, 	No.
SACV071418JVSRNBX, 2008 WL 11409133, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2008) (citing
Schwarzer, Tashmina & Wagstaffe, Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 9:361).
Defendants’ answer consists entirely of affirmative defenses. 	(ECF No. 17.) 	Thus, the
Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 56).
C. 	Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 57)
Plaintiffs move to enforce a judgment lien from an unrelated action, to which
Plaintiffs are not party. 	(ECF No. 57 at 1:26–2:7.) 	“It is a basic principle of law that a
person who is not a party to an action is not bound by the judgment in that action.” Leu v.
Int'l Boundary Comm'n, 605 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Restatement (Second)
of Judgments §§ 34, 62 cmt. a (1982)). 	Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to
enforce judgment (ECF No. 57).
D. 	Motion for Civil Contempt (ECF No. 66)
Plaintiffs move to hold Defendant Apartment Management Consultants, LLC in civil
contempt for allegedly filing false statements in court and misrepresenting its corporate
status. (ECF No. 66.) As a legal matter, contempt is only available when the district court
finds by clear and convincing evidence that a party “violated a specific and definite order
of the court.” 	Parsons v. Ryan, 949 F.3d 443, 454 (9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs have failed
to allege any specific court order in this action that Apartment Management Consultants,
LLC could have violated. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Apartment
Management Consultants, LLC in civil contempt (ECF No. 66).
Case 3:24-cv-00447-BAS-JLB Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

- 4 - 24cv447
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court DENIES multiple motions submitted by Plaintiffs
against Defendants, including: (1) Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 47),
(2) Plaintiffs’ motion for more definite statement (ECF No. 56), (3) Plaintiffs’ motion to
enforce judgment (ECF No. 57), and (4) Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Defendant Apartment
Management Consultants, LLC in civil contempt (ECF No. 66).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 15, 2025
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:24-cv-00447-BAS-JLB Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4