Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02021/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02021-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

Liberty West Regional Center, LLC, an 

Arizona limited liability company 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Salvatore Carpanzano, a/k/a John Salvatore 

Carpanzano, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

No. CV 13-02021-PHX-DGC

 ORDER 

 Plaintiff Liberty West Regional Center, LLC has filed a motion pursuant to 

Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting the entry of default 

judgment against Defendants Salvatore Carpanzano, Marisa Belcastro Carpanzano, 

(collectively the “Carpanzanos”), and Samba Financial Group Escrow & Consulting 

Services U.S.A., LLC (“Samba”). The Court will deny the motion without prejudice. 

Default was entered as to the Carpanzanos and Samba on November 5, 2013. 

Doc. 21. Once a party’s default has been entered, the district court has discretion to grant 

default judgment against that party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 

F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Factors the court must consider in deciding whether to 

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

merits of the claim, (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 

Case 2:13-cv-02021-JJT Document 38 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy favoring a decision on the merits. See 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In applying these 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) (“Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is 

required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in 

the responsive pleading.”). “However, necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, 

and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default.” Cripps v. Life 

Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992) 

Plaintiff’s motion does not address the Eitel factors. See Doc. 28. It is therefore 

unclear to the Court whether these factors favor the entry of default judgment. The Court 

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

have until January 31, 2014 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 requested damages. See Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 28) is denied

without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until January 31, 2014 to refile the motion. 

 Dated this 14th day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02021-JJT Document 38 Filed 01/14/14 Page 2 of 2