Mower v. Ideal Health et al
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERgranting 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 5/13/13. (ss)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
THOMAS MOWER,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
vs.
IDEAL HEALTH INC., a Nevada
corporation, TTN, LLC DBA THE TRUMP
NETWORK, a Massachusetts limited liability
company, TODD STANWOOD, SCOTT
STANWOOD, and LOUIS DECAPRIO,
Case No. 2:12-CV-230 TS
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiff
seeks default judgment against Defendants Todd Stanwood, Scott Stanwood, Louis DeCaprio,
Ideal Health, and TTN. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2012, the Court issued a memorandum decision and order denying
individual Defendants Todd Stanwood, Scott Stanwood, and Louis DeCaprio’s (the “Individual
Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss and ordering that Defendants Ideal Health and TTN (the “Entity
1
Defendants”) had 21 days to obtain legal counsel and file an appropriate response to Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint.1 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A), the Individual Defendants were
required to file a responsive pleading following the Court’s denial of their motion to dismiss
“within 14 days after notice of the court’s action . . . .”
On December 13, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause, ordering Defendants to
show cause in writing, why the Entity Defendants have failed to file a notice of appearance or
respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. The Court warned Defendants that a failure to
respond to the order may result in sanctions, up to and including default judgment.2
On March 4, 2013, noting that the Entity Defendants had not yet complied with the
Court’s order, and further noting that the Individual Defendants had not filed a responsive
pleading in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A), the Court issued a second order to show
cause. The Court ordered all Defendants to show cause “within twenty-one (21) days in writing,
why they have failed to file a notice of appearance or responded to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint.”3 Out of an abundance of caution, the Court again informed Defendants that a failure
to respond to the Court’s order “may result in sanctions, up to and including default judgment
being entered against Defendants.”4
1
Docket No. 21, at 13.
2
Docket No. 22, at 1-2.
3
Docket No. 23, at 2.
Id.
4
2
To date, the Entity Defendants have not filed a notice of appearance of counsel or
responded to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Likewise, the Individual Defendants have not
filed a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves for default judgment as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the
Court’s orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(c) provides that a court “may issue any just orders,
including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney . . . fails to obey
a . . . pretrial order.” Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides for certain sanctions, including:
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated
claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to
submit to a physical or mental examination.
“A district court . . . has discretion to sanction a party for failing to prosecute or defend a
case, or for failing to comply with local or federal procedural rules. Such sanctions may include
dismissing the party’s case with prejudice or entering judgment against the party.”5 “[D]ismissal
or other final disposition of a party’s claim ‘is a severe sanction reserved for the extreme case,
and is only appropriate where a lesser sanction would not serve the ends of justice.’”6 In
applying such a sanction, the district court must consider the following factors:
Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing Hancock v. City of Okla.
City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1396 (10th Cir. 1988)).
5
6
Id. (quoting Hancock, 857 F.2d at 1396).
3
(1) the degree of actual prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the degree of
interference with the judicial process, (3) the litigant’s culpability, (4) whether the
litigant was warned in advance that dismissal was a likely sanction, and (5)
whether a lesser sanction would be effective.7
Considering these factors, the Court finds that default judgment is appropriate. First, the
Court finds Plaintiff has been prejudiced by the Entity Defendants’ failure to appear and all
Defendants’ failure to participate in this action or comply with the Court’s orders. Without
Defendants’ appearance and participation, Plaintiff has been unable to proceed with this
litigation. Second, for essentially the same reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ actions have
interfered with the judicial process. Third, the Court finds that Defendants are highly culpable.
Defendants were informed on multiple occasions of what was required of them and the possible
consequences of noncompliance, but have taken no action. Fourth, as set forth above, the Court
warned that sanctions, including default judgment, may be entered if Defendants failed to appoint
counsel or otherwise appear. Finally, the Court finds that lesser sanctions would not be adequate
as Defendants have failed to participate in this action and there is no indication that they intend to
do so.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Docket No. 25) is
GRANTED.
The Court will enter judgment by separate order.
LaFleur v. Teen Help, 342 F.3d 1145, 1151 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
7
4
DATED May 13, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
5
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?