Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01925/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01925-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Dittmar, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1925-PHX- SMM

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Dittmar’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for

Judgment Upon Default and Memorandum in Support. (Doc. No. 11) 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in August 8, 2006, alleging claims for violations of the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq., and the Fair Credit

Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. Defendant Thunderbird Collection

Specialists, Inc. (“Defendant”), an Arizona corporation, was properly served on September

16, 2006. To date, Defendant has not made an appearance in this case. 

Pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court entered

default in this matter on September 19, 2006. After a status conference was held on May 7,

2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment Upon Default and Memorandum in Support on

May 29, 2007.

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-01925-SMM Document 14 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

STANDARD OF REVIEW

It is within the district court’s discretion whether or not to enter default judgment. Albade

v. Albade, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Seven factors are generally considered

before entering default judgment: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the

merits of plaintiff’s substantive claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of

money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6)

whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy ... favoring

decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 

DISCUSSION

The Complaint in this matter was served upon Defendant and proof of service was filed

on August 18, 2006. (Dkt. 6) Cf. Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758

F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that default judgment void without personal

jurisdiction). The Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant on September 19, 2006.

Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint by

the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977).

Entry of default is proper where, as in the present case, the facts established by the default

support the causes of action pled in the Complaint. The Complaint and the affidavits filed

in support of the motion for entry of default judgment also support the finding that Plaintiff

is entitled to the statutory relief requested in the memorandum in support of default

judgment, which does not differ in kind from the relief requested in the Complaint. Henry

v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315, 317 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1974). Moreover, there are no policy

considerations to preclude the entry of default judgment of the type requested. See Eitel, 782

F.2d 1at 1471-1472.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Upon Default. (Doc.

No. 11). 

Case 2:06-cv-01925-SMM Document 14 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter Default Judgment

against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages in the amount

of $2,000, attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,500.00, and costs in the amount of $398.00.

See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692k, 1681n; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 30th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01925-SMM Document 14 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 3