Metro PCS v. A2Z Connection, LLC et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying ECF No. 35 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 6/21/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

MetroPCS, a brand of T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
2:15-cv-01412-JAD-CWH

5

Plaintiff
Order Denying Motion for Default
Judgment Without Prejudice

6

v.

7

A2Z Connection, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

[ECF No. 35]

8
9

Metro PCS sued A2Z Connection, LLC., A2Z, LLC, and three of their agents, Amir, Asim,

10

and Seher Qureshi, for trademark infringement and related claims, seeking monetary damages and

11

permanent injunctive relief.1 Defaults have been entered against all defendants,2 and Metro PCS

12

now moves for a default judgment.3 Because Metro PCS failed to address the Eitel factors in its

13

motion, I deny the motion without prejudice.4

14
15

Discussion
A.

16

Default judgment under FRCP 55
When the clerk has entered a default against a party, Rules 54(b) and 55 of the Federal Rules

17

of Civil Procedure permit the court to enter a default judgment.5 The Ninth Circuit in Eitel v.

18

McCool set forth seven factors that govern the district court’s decision whether to enter a default

19

judgment: (1) potential prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claim;

20

(3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the amount of money at stake in the action; (5) the potential

21
22
1

ECF No. 1.

2

ECF Nos. 23, 31, 33.

3

ECF No. 35.

4

I find this motion suitable for disposition without oral argument. L.R. 78-1.

23
24
25
26
27
28

5

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d at 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986); Trustees of the Bricklayers & Allied
Craftworkers Local 13 Defined Contribution Pension Trust for S. Nev. v. Tumbleweed Dev., Inc.,
2013 WL 143378, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 11, 2013) (citing Eitel).
Page 1 of 2

1

disputes as to material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong

2

federal policy favoring adjudications on the merits.6

3

Except for the amount of money at stake and the merits of Metro PCS’s substantive claims,

4

Metro PCS’s motion does not address the Eitel factors. Metro PCS has thus left me without the

5

guidance and information I need to determine whether a default judgment is warranted. I therefore

6

deny Metro PCS’s motion without prejudice to its ability to file a new motion that addresses the Eitel

7

factors and explains why these factors warrant the judgment that Metro PCS requests.7

8

Conclusion

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Metro PCS’s motion for entry of default
judgment [ECF No. 35] is DENIED without prejudice.

11

Dated this 21st day of June, 2016.

12
_________________________________
____ __________________
______
__ _____ _
_
_ __
Jennifer A
Jennifer A. Dorsey
n
United States District Judge
ed ta
ed States
ct ud
ct Judge
ud

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
6

25
26
27
28

See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72.

7

See, e.g., Rimlinger v. Shenyang 245 Factory, 2014 WL 2527147 (D. Nev. June 4, 2014); Neumont
University, LLC v. Little Bizzy, LLC, 2014 WL 2112938 (D. Nev. May 20, 2014); U.S. S.E.C. v.
Brandonisio, 2013 WL 5371626 (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2013); Trustees of Teamsters Local 631 Sec.
Fund for Southern Nevada v. Knox Installation-Dismantling and Services, Inc., 2013 WL 4857897
(D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2013).
Page 2 of 2