Butler, III et al v. Unified Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 31

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT re 25 First MOTION for Default Judgment as to National Brokers of America, Inc. and Request for Hearing on Damages filed by Charles M. Butler, III, Chole Butler. Signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan on 8/22/2017. (JDR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
CHARLES M. BUTLER, III and
CHLOE BUTLER
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CV 17-50-BLG-SPW-TJC

ORDER REGARDING
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
DEFAULT JUDGMENT

UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; HEALTH PLANS
INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS,
LLC, doing business as Health
Insurance Innovations, doing business
as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.;
ALLIED NATIONAL, INC.;
NATIONAL BROKERS OF
AMERICA, INC.; THE NATIONAL
CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC.;
and DOES 1-10
Defendants.

Plaintiffs Charles and Chloe Butler (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a Motion for
Entry Default Judgment against Defendant National Brokers of America, Inc.
(“NBOA”). (Doc. 25.) Defendants Unified Life Insurance Company and Allied
National, Inc. filed an opposition. (Doc. 26.) Upon review of the opposition,
Plaintiffs indicate they wish to withdraw their motion. (Doc. 30.) Good cause
appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to withdraw the
Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.

Although the motion has been withdrawn, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’
single-page motion failed to address the applicable legal standards, and was devoid
of any argument or analysis. “A defendant’s default does not automatically entitle
the plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment.” Pepsico, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238
F.Supp.2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Therefore, Plaintiffs are advised that
should they renew the motion for entry of default judgement in the future, the
motion must address each of the factors set forth in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,
1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), with regard to each claim against NBOA, the Court’s
jurisdiction over this case and NBOA, and whether entry of default should be
delayed under Rule 54(b). The motion must also comply with Local Rules
7.1(c)(1) and 7.1(d)(1)(A).
IT IS ORDERED.
DATED this 22nd day of August, 2017.
_______________________________
TIMOTHY J. CAVAN
United States Magistrate Judge