Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02339/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02339-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

VFS Financing Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sea Horse Marine, Inc., et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2339-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to defendants Sea

Horse Marine, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, and Oceanografia, (doc. 33). We also have before

us defendants' motion to set aside entry of default (doc. 34), plaintiff's response (doc. 35),

and defendants' reply (doc. 36).

The clerk entered default against defendants on May 2, 2011 for failure to answer or

otherwise appear (doc. 29). That same day, defendants finally filed an Answer (doc. 30).

Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to Rule 55(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. for default judgment.

Defendants request that we set aside the entry of default. Defendants argue that the entry of

default is invalid because the Original Complaint was superseded and the Amended

Complaint was not served properly on defendants.

An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc.

114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on April

Case 2:10-cv-02339-FJM Document 37 Filed 06/15/11 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 -

7, 2011 (doc. 22). It then applied for an entry of default on April 29, 2011. It is unclear

which complaint plaintiff sought default on. However, in the applications' accompanying

affidavits, plaintiff cites the affidavits of service of process associated with the original

complaint (docs. 26, 27). By filing the Amended Complaint, any request for default as to the

Original Complaint was mooted. See Best Western Int'l., Inc. v. Melbourne Hotel Investors,

No. CV 06-2276-PHX, 2007 WL 2990132 (D. Ariz. Oct. 10, 2007). Plaintiff must first apply

for an entry of default on the Amended Complaint and then move for default judgment. See

id. (citing Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Even if plaintiff did obtain an entry of default as to the Amended Complaint, we still

must set it aside because defendants were not served properly. Rule 5(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.

requires that a pleading asserting new claims for relief be served on a party in default for

failing to appear, in the manner provided for under Rule 4. Rule 4 generally requires

personal service of a summons with the complaint. Rule 5(a)(2) is applicable because

defendants had not appeared before the entry of default and the Amended Complaint asserts

new claims for relief. See Employee Painters' Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, 480 F.3d 993, 999

(9th Cir. 2007). Although the Amended Complaint alleges the same five causes of action,

it relies on new facts and alternative legal theories. For example, in the Original Complaint,

plaintiff alleged that defendants were in default because they owed money under the Loan

Agreement (doc. 1 ¶ 35). In contrast, in the Amended Complaint, plaintiff admits that

defendants paid their delinquent amounts, but alleges default because of a history of "chronic

payment failures," among other things (doc. 22 ¶ ¶ 38, 43). Plaintiff even stated that the

Amended Complaint "bring[s] additional defaults" against defendants (doc. 21). 

Because Rule 5(a)(2) is applicable, plaintiff must comply with Rule 4 before applying

for an entry of default. Plaintiffs have not submitted any proof of service of the Amended

Complaint. Instead, it appears plaintiff simply mailed a copy of the Amended Complaint to

a former address of defendants' New Orleans Counsel. Accordingly, since plaintiff failed to

comply with Rule 4 we lack personal jurisdiction over defendants. The entry of default is

void. See Mason v. Genisco Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 1992).

Case 2:10-cv-02339-FJM Document 37 Filed 06/15/11 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 -

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for default judgment

(doc. 33). It is FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to set aside entry

of default (doc. 34).

The clerk is directed to schedule this case for a Rule 16 conference.

DATED this 14th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02339-FJM Document 37 Filed 06/15/11 Page 3 of 3