Smith v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc et al

Filing 28

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED. If plaintiff has not obtained default against Accredited and filed a proper motion for default judgment by 8/30/2017, this case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 8/9/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Raymond Smith,

5

2:15-cv-0565-JAD-GWF

Plaintiff
Order Denying Motion for
Default Judgment

6

v.

7

Accredited Home Lenders, et al.,

8

[ECF No. 27]

Defendants

9
10

Little has been done in this two-year-old case. On July 6, 2017, the Clerk of Court notified

11

plaintiff Raymond Smith that “[i]f no action is taken in this case by 8/5/17, the court shall enter an

12

order of dismissal for want of prosecution.”1 One day before that deadline, Smith filed a motion for

13

default judgment against non-appearing defendant Accredited Home Lenders.2

14

Plaintiff skipped a required step in the default-judgment process. As the Ninth Circuit Court

15

of Appeals explained in Eitel v. McCool, Rule 55 requires a “two-step process” consisting of: FIRST

16

asking the Clerk of Court to enter default against the non-answering defendant; and then SECOND,

17

after the clerk has entered default, filing a motion (properly supported by a memorandum of points

18

and authorities3) asking the judge to enter default judgment.4 Because no default against Accredited

19

has been requested or entered, plaintiff’s request for a default judgment is not ripe.

20
21

Even if the plaintiff had first asked the clerk to enter default, this motion for default judgment
would be denied. Before the court can grant a request for default judgment, the court must evaluate

22
1

ECF No. 26.

24

2

ECF No. 27.

25

3

L.R. 7-2(a).

26

4

23

27
28

See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Eitel apparently fails to understand the
two-step process required by Rule 55.”); accord Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d
922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that Rules 55(a) and (b) provide a two-step process for obtaining a
default judgment).
1

1

several factors including: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s

2

substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action;

3

(5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to

4

excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring

5

decisions on the merits.”5 Plaintiff has not addressed these factors at all, let alone demonstrated why

6

they favor default judgment here. Plaintiff is cautioned that, if is able to obtain the entry of default

7

against Accredited and he wants to renew his request for a default judgment, he must provide a

8

detailed analysis of the factors listed above and how they support a default judgment against

9

Accredited.

10

ORDER

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [ECF

12

No. 27] is DENIED. If plaintiff has not obtained default against Accredited and filed a proper

13

motion for default judgment by August 30, 2017, this case will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

14

Dated this 9th day of August, 2017

15
_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

Eitel,782 F.2d at 1471–72.
2