Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00471/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00471-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 740
Nature of Suit: Railway Labor Act
Cause of Action: 45:151 Railway Labor 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Don Addington, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

US Airline Pilots Ass’n, et al.

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-00471-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment

by the Court Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), filed April 8, 2013, wherein the plaintiffs

seek default judgment against defendant US Airline Pilots Ass’n (“USAPA”) for its

alleged failure to timely respond to the complaint. Having reviewed the motion,

the Court finds that it should be summarily denied.

First, the motion is procedurally improper. There is a two-step procedure

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 55 for obtaining a default judgment that the plaintiffs have

inexplicably failed to follow. Under that procedure, the plaintiffs may not seek the

entry of a default judgment from the Court pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) without first

seeking through a separate application, and obtaining, the entry of default from

the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Rule 55(a). Although the plaintiffs state that

Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 37 Filed 04/09/13 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

1

 The Court deems USAPA’s response to the plaintiffs’ motion to

transfer, which it filed on April 5, 2013, to have been timely filed since the Court

would have granted it an extension until April 22, 2013 to file its response.

- 2 -

the declaration of their counsel filed with their motion “establishes the procedural

elements required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2)[,]” the declaration does nothing to

establish that the plaintiffs have complied with Rule 55(a), nor does anything else

in the record.

Second, the motion is improper because the Court concludes that USAPA

is not in any case currently in default. According to the plaintiffs, USAPA had to

answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by April 4, 2013, but USAPA timely

filed a motion on March 22, 2013 seeking an extension of time to answer or

otherwise respond to the complaint until May 6, 2013 and that motion is currently

pending. The timely filing of that motion stays USAPA’s answer date until such

time as the Court provides in its resolution of the motion. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment by the

Court Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) (Doc. 34) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that US Airline Pilots Association’s Motion for

Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Case and to

Answer or Otherwise Move With Respect to the Complaint (Doc.9 ) is granted to

the extent that defendant US Airline Pilots Association shall answer or otherwise

respond to the complaint no later than April 22, 2013.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future documents filed in this action

must be captioned according to the party capitalization requirement of LRCiv

7.1(a)(3) (“Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case

/ / /

Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 37 Filed 04/09/13 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

- 3 -

type.”)

DATED this 9th day of April, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 37 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 3