Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01804/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01804-0/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

Bankers Insurance Company, a Florida 

corporation, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Old West Bonding Company, LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-1804 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against Defendant Old West Bonding Co., LLC, dba 

Liberty Bail Bonds, LLC (“Liberty”). Doc. 35. No response has been filed, and the time 

for doing so has expired. For reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion. 

I. Background.

 Plaintiffs filed this case on September 14, 2011, after Defendant Liberty and 

others failed to honor the terms of a General Agency Agreement. On September 23, 

2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint after learning that Dominic Bocchicchio, a 

Defendant in the Complaint, filed bankruptcy. The Amended Complaint includes four 

causes of action, two of which pertain to Liberty (First Cause of Action and Second 

Cause of Action). 

 Liberty was served with the amended complaint on October 17, 2011. Doc. 15. 

On October 21, 2011, pro se Defendant Kaye D. O’Neal filed a document titled Answer 

of Defendants Old West Bonding Co., LLC and Kaye D. O’Neal. Doc. 16. The answer 

Case 2:11-cv-01804-DGC Document 38 Filed 07/16/12 Page 1 of 4
‐ 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 

purported to respond to the allegations in the Amended Complaint on behalf of both 

O’Neal and Liberty. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to 

strike Liberty’s answer on the grounds that it improperly appeared without counsel. 

Doc. 19. Subsequently, an order to show cause (Doc. 27) was issued striking Liberty’s 

answer and giving Liberty until January 13, 2012 to respond to the Amended Complaint 

through counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 

506 U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . 

that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.”). Liberty 

has never filed an answer or otherwise responded to the Amended Complaint. On 

February 17, 2012 the Clerk of the Court entered default against Liberty based on its 

failure to respond to the Amended Complaint. Doc. 33. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

 Plaintiffs’ motion seeks default judgment against Liberty in the amount of 

$391,690.50, representing losses incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of bonds issued by 

Liberty in the amount of $377,831.50, prejudgment interest pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-

1201(B), post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, attorneys’ fees in the 

amount of $10,971.50, and costs in the amount of $2,888.00. Because Defendant’s 

default has been properly entered pursuant to Rule 55(a), the Court has discretion to grant 

default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b). See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 

(9th Cir. 1980). 

 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, (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). In applying these Eitel factors, “the factual allegations of the 

complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” 

Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). 

Case 2:11-cv-01804-DGC Document 38 Filed 07/16/12 Page 2 of 4
‐ 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 

 The first Eitel factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion because they 

will be prejudiced if this case remains unresolved. Plaintiffs served Liberty more than 

seven months ago. Doc. 15. Liberty has not answered or otherwise responded to the 

complaint through counsel as required in federal court. If Plaintiffs’ motion for default 

judgment is not granted, Plaintiffs “will likely be without other recourse for recovery.” 

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Security Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002). 

 The second and third Eitel factors favor a default judgment where the complaint 

sufficiently states a claim for relief under Rule 8. See Cal. Security Cans, 238 F. Supp. 

2d at 1175; Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388-89 (9th Cir. 1978)). Plaintiffs’ 

Amended Complaint states plausible claims for relief. See Doc. 7. 

 Under the fourth Eitel factor, the Court considers the amount of money at stake in 

relation to the seriousness of Liberty’s conduct. See Cal. Security Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 

at 1176. On October 12, 1998, Plaintiffs and Liberty entered into a General Agency 

Agreement, pursuant to which Plaintiffs authorized Liberty to issue bail bonds 

underwritten by Plaintiffs. The Agreement required Liberty to indemnify Plaintiffs 

against any loss as a result of the issuance of bail bonds. Doc. 35 at 3-4. The Amended 

Complaint alleges that Liberty issued bail bonds, Plaintiffs incurred losses as a result, and 

Liberty has failed to meet its indemnification obligations. Given these allegations, a 

default judgment in the amount of $391,690.50 is reasonable. This factor weighs in favor 

of a default judgment. See Bd. of Trs. of Cal. Metal Trades v. Pitchometer Propeller, No. 

C-97-2661-VRW, 1997 WL 7979222, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 1997) (granting default 

judgment where amount of money at stake was reasonable, justified, and properly 

documented). 

 The fifth Eitel factor also favors a default judgment. Given the sufficiency of the 

Amended Complaint and Defendant’s default, “no genuine dispute of material facts 

would preclude granting [Plaintiff’s] motion.” Cal. Security Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 

1177; see Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. 

 Applying the sixth factor, the Court cannot conclude that Liberty’s default is due 

Case 2:11-cv-01804-DGC Document 38 Filed 07/16/12 Page 3 of 4
‐ 4 ‐ 

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 

to excusable neglect. Liberty was properly served with the summons and Amended 

Complaint pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc.15. Liberty 

initially attempted to appear through pro se defendant O’Neal, showing that it had notice 

of this case. Liberty’s failure to respond thereafter cannot be attributed to excusable 

neglect. See Gemmel v. Systemhouse, Inc., No. CIV 04-187-TUC-CKJ, 2008 WL 65604, 

at *5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 3, 2008); see also United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., 

Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that it was “perfectly appropriate” for the 

district court to enter default judgment against a corporation that failed to appear in the 

action through licensed counsel).

 The final Eitel factor weighs against default judgment. “Cases should be decided 

upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. But the mere 

existence of Rule 55(b) “indicates that this preference, standing alone, is not dispositive.” 

Cal. Security Cans, 238 F. Supp. at 1177 (citation omitted). Moreover, Liberty’s failure 

to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint “makes a decision on the merits 

impractical, if not impossible.” Id. 

 Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion and supporting exhibits, and having 

considered the Eitel factors as a whole, the Court concludes that the entry of default 

judgment is appropriate against Defendant Old West Bonding Company, LLC, dba 

Liberty Bail Bonds, LLC, in the amount of $391,690.50. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Doc. 35) is granted. 

 2. Default judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant 

Old West Bonding Company, LLC dba Liberty Bail Bonds, LLC in the amount of 

$391,690.50. Plaintiffs may submit a form of judgment for the Court’s execution. 

 Dated this 13th day of July, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01804-DGC Document 38 Filed 07/16/12 Page 4 of 4