United States of America v. Schaedler-Moore et al

1
24-CV-978 W (AHG)
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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY SCHAEDLER-MOORE et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-CV-978 W (AHG)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 150]
Before the Court is Defendant Nancy Schaedler-Moore’s motion for reconsideration.
(Doc. 150.) Ms. Schaedler-Moore requests that the Court reconsider the following: (1) the
January 12, 2026 order that denied sequencing of the disposition of certain motions,
allowed leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion to alter/amend
the judgment, set a briefing schedule on the motion to join parties, and permitted the filing
of a sur-reply to the motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 139); (2) the January 22,
2026 order that denied the motion for temporary stay of enforcement, granted the motion
to continue the briefing schedule on the motion to alter/amend judgment, and clarified the
page limit (Doc. 145); and (3) the January 13, 2025 order that entered default judgment
against Defendant’s S-corporation (Doc. 48).1 Defendant filed a response in opposition.
1 Ms. Schaedler-Moore also requested reconsideration of the Court’s February 4, 2026 minute order (See
Doc. 148) that set a briefing schedule on the renewed ex parte application for a temporary stay of
Case 3:24-cv-00978-W-AHG Document 172 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
24-CV-978 W (AHG)
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
(Doc. 163.) The Court considers each request for reconsideration below2.
First, Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s request for reconsideration of the January 12, 2026
order is DENIED AS MOOT. In her sequencing motion, Ms. Schaedler-Moore asked the
Court to: (1) first resolve her motion to join parties; (2) then set a briefing schedule on her
motion to alter/amend the Court’s judgment; and (3) hold Defendant/Cross-Defendant
Freedom’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 77) in abeyance. (See Docs. 121,
123.) The Court denied the motion and has since issued rulings on the motion to join parties
and the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See Docs. 159, 161.) The only motion
remaining from the proposed sequence is the motion to alter/amend the Court’s judgment.
Furthermore, the remainder of January 12 order merely established a briefing schedule for
motions that have now been resolved or otherwise altered3. Accordingly, reconsideration
of that order is now moot.
Ms. Schaedler-Moore also seeks reconsideration of the January 22, 2026 order
denying her request for a stay of enforcement. Ms. Schaedler-Moore has repeatedly sought
a stay in this matter, including through: (1) an ex parte emergency motion to stay the case
(Doc. 101), (2) a motion to stay proceedings for an administrative stay and sequencing
(Doc. 121), (3) an ex parte application for a temporary enforcement stay (Doc. 141), and
(4) an ex parte application to temporarily stay enforcement or a temporary restraining order
in the alternative (Doc. 147). Most recently, she filed another motion for reconsideration
that again requests an administrative stay. (See Doc. 162.) Since she has filed a new motion
raising the same issue, the Court finds that motion supersedes the reconsideration request
enforcement, or temporary restraining order. However, in denying that application, the Court denied the
portion of Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s motion for reconsideration that requested a reply brief. (See Doc. 154
at n.1.) Accordingly, it is not addressed here.
2 Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s motion for reconsideration raised issues not previously addressed in this
Court’s orders. Therefore, those issues are beyond the scope of a motion for reconsideration and are not
addressed here.
3 The Court granted Ms. Schaedler-Moore’s motion to extend the briefing schedule in a more recent
order, so the original briefing schedule is now moot.
Case 3:24-cv-00978-W-AHG Document 172 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
24-CV-978 W (AHG)
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
currently before the Court. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration on this issue is
DENIED AS MOOT.
Lastly, Ms. Schaedler-Moore requests reconsideration of the Court’s January 13,
2025 order that entered default judgment against her S-corporation. (See Doc. 48.) She
argues that the corporation was never served with the motion for default judgment, and that
without proper notice, the resulting default judgment is unenforceable. (Doc. 150 at 4-5.)
As Plaintiff correctly notes (Doc. 163), Defendant has not filed a motion to vacate the
default judgment. Accordingly, the issue is not properly before the Court.
Nevertheless, the Court briefly addresses Defendant’s argument. Applications for
default judgment are governed by Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). For a court to grant default judgment, the plaintiff must
establish that: (1) the defendant has been served with the summons and complaint and
default was entered for their failure to appear; (2) the defendant is neither a minor nor an
incompetent person; (3) the defendant is not in military service or not otherwise subject to
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; and (4) if the defendant has appeared in the action,
that the defendant was provided with notice of the application for default judgment at least
seven days prior to the hearing. See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 3931; Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corp. v. Streeter, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1070 (D. Ariz. 2006).
Here, because the S-corporation did not appear in this action, Rule 55(b)(2) did not
require service of notice of the application for default judgment. The docket also reflects
that the S-Corporation was properly served with the summons and complaint. (Doc. 24.)
Therefore, 	Ms. 	Schaedler-Moore 	has 	not 	established 	the 	grounds 	required 	for
reconsideration (newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law.) Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-00978-W-AHG Document 172 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3