Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00563/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00563-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

GCB Communications, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Next-G Communications, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-563-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s “Motion for Entry of Default Judgment” (doc. 8),

“Application for Entry of Default Judgment”(doc.9), defendant’s Response (doc. 13), and

plaintiff’s Reply (doc.14). 

Defendant’s Answer was due on April 20, 2010. On April 23, 2010, plaintiff denied

defendant’s request for an extension to May 10, 2010. On April 26, 2010, plaintiff filed its

motion for default judgment even before it applied for entry of default. On April 29, 2010,

plaintiff applied for entry of default by the clerk and on that same day defendant filed an

Answer and response to the motion for entry of default judgment. Because the Answer was

filed on the same day as the application for entry of default, the clerk did not enter default

under Rule 55(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.

The entry of default must precede the entry of default judgment. The filing of an

answer on the day default was applied for mooted the default. And, without an entry of

Case 2:10-cv-00563-HRH Document 15 Filed 05/13/10 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 -

default, a motion for entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., does not

lie. 

The defendant’s answer, although late, was filed only six days after it was due. While

defendant’s practices were sloppy, and risky, no good purpose is served by entering default

now, where, as here, no prejudice is shown.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s application for entry of default

(doc. 9) and its motion for entry of default judgment (doc. 8). 

An order scheduling a Rule 16 conference will follow.

DATED this 13th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00563-HRH Document 15 Filed 05/13/10 Page 2 of 2