Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01740/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01740-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

Best Western International, Inc., an

Arizona non-profit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Niagra River Hotels, Inc., a Canadian

corporation; and Mangat Verma,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1740-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Best Western International, Inc. filed a complaint against Defendants Niagra

River Hotels, Inc. and Mangat Verma asserting various state and federal law claims arising

from Defendants’ alleged unlawful use of Plaintiff’s marks and alleged failure to pay monies

owed to Plaintiff. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to

Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #23. For reasons that follow, the

Court will deny the motion without prejudice.

Because Defendants’ default has been properly entered under Rule 55(a) (see Dkt.

##17-20), the Court has discretion to grant default judgment against Defendants pursuant to

Rule 55(b). See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); Draper v. Coombs,

792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). Factors the Court should consider in deciding whether

to grant default judgment include (1) the possibility of prejudice to Plaintiff, (2) the merits

of the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, if any,

Case 2:08-cv-01740-DGC Document 25 Filed 05/14/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

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

excusable neglect, and (7) the policy favoring a decision on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool,

782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

 Because Plaintiff does not address the Eitel factors (see Dkt. ##23-24), the Court

will deny the motion for default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until

May 29, 2009 to refile the motion. The new motion shall fully address each Eitel factor and

also shall include an explanation and evidence sufficient to support any calculation of

damages, including the mean of the Hotel’s room rates, the number of rooms, and the number

of days the Hotel used Plaintiff’s marks after termination of the parties’ agreement. See

Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (factual allegations of the

complaint relating to the amount of damages are not taken as true on a motion for default

judgment); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(2)(6) (“An allegation – other than one relating to the amount

of damages – is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not

denied.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. #23) is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff shall have until May 29, 2009 to file a new motion for default

judgment consistent with this order.

DATED this 14th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01740-DGC Document 25 Filed 05/14/09 Page 2 of 2