Liberty West Regional Center LLC v. Carpanzano et al
ORDER denying 28 Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiff shall have until 1/31/2014 to refile the motion for default judgment. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/14/2014.(DGC, nvo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Liberty West Regional Center, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company
No. CV 13-02021-PHX-DGC
Salvatore Carpanzano, a/k/a John Salvatore
Carpanzano, et al.,
Plaintiff Liberty West Regional Center, LLC has filed a motion pursuant to
Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting the entry of default
judgment against Defendants Salvatore Carpanzano, Marisa Belcastro Carpanzano,
(collectively the “Carpanzanos”), and Samba Financial Group Escrow & Consulting
Services U.S.A., LLC (“Samba”). The Court will deny the motion without prejudice.
Default was entered as to the Carpanzanos and Samba on November 5, 2013.
Doc. 21. Once a party’s default has been entered, the district court has discretion to grant
default judgment against that party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616
F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Factors the court must consider in deciding whether to
grant default judgment include (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the
merits of the claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at
stake, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether default was
due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy favoring a decision on the merits. See
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In applying these factors, “the
factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will
be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d) (“Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is
required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in
the responsive pleading.”). “However, necessary facts not contained in the pleadings,
and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default.” Cripps v. Life
Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992)
Plaintiff’s motion does not address the Eitel factors. See Doc. 28. It is therefore
unclear to the Court whether these factors favor the entry of default judgment. The Court
will accordingly deny the motion for default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff shall
have until January 31, 2014 to refile the motion. The new motion shall fully address
each Eitel factor and also shall include an explanation and evidence sufficient to support
any calculation of requested damages. See Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 28) is denied
without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until January 31, 2014 to refile the motion.
Dated this 14th day of January, 2014.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?