Clark v. Guerrero
Filing
150
ORDER Granting 149 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/14/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
MICHAEL E. CLARK,
8
9
10
Case No. 2:09-CV-141 JCM (PAL)
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
v.
ADRIAN GUERRERO,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
14
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendant
Adrian Guerrero. (Doc. # 149).
15
On September 17, 2014, this court entered an order to show cause against defendant. (Doc.
16
# 144). Defendant has not responded to this order in over a year and has not filed any other
17
documents since that date. This court ordered default (doc. #147), and the clerk entered default
18
against defendant. (Doc. #148).
19
Default judgment is appropriate “when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative
20
relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or
21
otherwise. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) provides that “a
22
court may enter a default judgment after the party seeking default applies to the clerk of the court
23
as required by subsection (a) of this rule.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
24
Obtaining a default judgment entails two steps: “first, the party seeking a default judgment
25
must file a motion for entry of default with the clerk of a district court by demonstrating that the
26
opposing party has failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, and, second, once the
27
clerk has entered a default, the moving party may then seek entry of a default judgment against the
28
defaulting party.” See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Stewart, 461 F. Supp. 2d 837, 840 (S.D. Ill. 2006).
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
The decision to enter a default judgment lies within the discretion of the trial court. Aldabe
2
v. Aldabe, 616 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In determining whether to grant a default
3
judgment, the trial court should consider the seven factors articulated in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d
4
1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). These factors are: (1) the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff, (2)
5
the merits of the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, (5)
6
the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether default was due to excusable
7
neglect, and (7) the policy favoring a decision on the merits. Id. In applying these Eitel factors,
8
“the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be
9
taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); see Fed. R. Civ.
10
P. 8(d).
11
Plaintiff has properly complied with Rule 55. Defendant has not filed a response to this
12
court’s order to show cause. (Doc. #144). After considering the Eitel factors, the court finds it
13
appropriate to enter default judgment against the defendant.
14
Accordingly,
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for
16
17
18
19
20
21
default judgment (doc. # 149) be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECRRED that plaintiff shall prepare
and file an appropriate judgment for the court’s signature.
DATED December 14, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
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?