Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01269/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01269-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 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 1

 Plaintiff, Adeyemi and Akinlosotu settled on August 4, 2009 (Docs. 41-43).

wo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chanel, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Tuby Adeyemi, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1269-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On July 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint seeking monetary and

injunctive relief for Defendants’ alleged violations of federal trademark law (Doc. 1). On

October 30, 2009, Defendants were each served with a summons and Complaint (Docs. 9-

11). On November 14, 2008, Defendants Adeyemi and Akinlosotu filed an Answer (Doc.

7).1

 Defendant Manns failed to timely file an Answer. On February 18, 2009, default was

entered against Manns for failure to answer the Complaint or otherwise appear, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) (“Rule 55(a)”) (Doc. 18). On April 22, 2009, Plaintiff

filed an Amended Motion for Final Default Judgment, which is currently before the Court

and will be denied (Doc. 33).

 

Case 2:08-cv-01269-ROS Document 44 Filed 08/21/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Discussion

A. Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) (“Rule 55(b)”) permits a trial court, upon

motion, to enter judgment against a defendant who has defaulted under Rule 55(a). While

a Rule 55(a) default constitutes the defendant’s admission of all facts alleged in the

complaint and may establish liability, it is the responsibility of the trial court, before entering

judgment on a Rule 55(b) motion, to determine whether the complaint states a claim and

assess appropriate damages. See Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir.

1977) (per curiam) (“The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of

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

Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 495 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Well-pleaded allegations are taken as

admitted on a default judgment.”); cf. Danning v. Levine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388-89 (9th Cir.

1978) (a complaint which is not well-pleaded, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8, cannot support a default judgment). 

A Rule 55(b) determination falls squarely within the discretion of the trial court. See

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (“The district court’s

decision whether to enter a default judgment is a discretionary one.”). However, trial courts

are encouraged to look at seven factors: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2)

the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum

of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6)

whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool, 782

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

A trial court’s discretion is further limited by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

(“SCRA”), which requires, as a prerequisite to default judgment, the submission of an

affidavit “stating whether or not the defendant is in military service and showing necessary

facts to support the affidavit[,] or if the plaintiff is unable to determine whether or not the

Case 2:08-cv-01269-ROS Document 44 Filed 08/21/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

defendant is in military service, stating that the plaintiff is unable to determine whether or

not the defendant is in military service.” 50 App. U.S.C. § 521(b)(1); see also Sprinkle v.

SB&C Ltd., 472 F. Supp.2d 1235, 1244 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (compliance with the SCRA

affidavit requirement “is a prerequisite to the entry of judgment for the plaintiff”); James

Wm. Moore, 10 Moore’s Federal Practice §55.90 (2008 ed.). Because the SCRA requires

that “facts must be set forth, an affidavit made upon information and belief is insufficient”

to satisfy the statute’s affidavit requirement. U.S. v. Simmons, 508 F. Supp. 552, 552 n.1

(E.D. Tenn. 1980) (denying motion for default judgment for failure to satisfy SCRA affidavit

requirement); see also e.g. Bank of Nova Scotia v. George, 2008 WL 501263, *2 (D. V.I.

2008) (denying motion for default judgment because plaintiff’s affidavit did “not show

necessary facts to support its bare assertion that the [d]efendants are not in military

service.”); Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Barr, 2008 WL 4748202, *1-2 (M.D. Pa. 2008)

(same). Instead, Plaintiff must set forth specific facts establishing “the efforts exerted to

determine [d]efendant’s military [or other SCRA] status.” Merrill v. Beard, 2007 WL

461469, *3 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (denying motion for summary judgment for failing to comply

with affidavit requirement); cf. e.g. Priority Records, LLC v. Tabora, 2007 WL 2517312, *1

(N.D. Cal. 2007) (determining plaintiff complied with SCRA affidavit requirement when

plaintiff’s counsel attested to having “conducted a search through the Department of

Defense-Manpower Data Center, and determined that defendant is not serving in the

military.”); Caroline Records v. Westhoff, 2006 Copr. L. Dec. P. 29,1119; 2006 WL 538688,

*1 (D. Colo. 2006) (determining plaintiff complied with SCRA affidavit requirement when

plaintiff’s counsel attested to having conducted a search through the LexisNexis U.S.

Military Locator database and determined defendant is not serving in the military).

 

B. SCRA Compliance 

To comply with the SCRA, Plaintiff has two options. Plaintiff may submit an

affidavit attesting that Manns is not currently enrolled in the military or other applicable

Case 2:08-cv-01269-ROS Document 44 Filed 08/21/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

service and provide facts to support the attestation. See 50 App. U.S.C. § 521(b)(1)(A). In

the alternative, an affidavit may be submitted attesting that Plaintiff has been unable to

determine whether Manns is currently enrolled in the military or other applicable service.

See 50 App. U.S.C. § 521(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff has done neither, but rather submitted an

affidavit from Counsel stating “[t]o my knowledge, [Manns] is not serving in the military”

and an unsworn statement affirming that “[t]o the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, Manns is not

in the military and the Soldier’s and Sailor’s Civil Relief Act . . . does not apply” (Docs. 33

Ex. A at ¶ 8; 17 at ¶ 5). These statements neither provide facts nor suggest Plaintiff has made

an attempt to determine Manns’ status under the SCRA. The Motion will thus be denied, but

without prejudice. See 50 App. U.S.C. § 521(b)(3) (“The court may issue such orders or

enter such judgments as the court determines necessary to protect the rights of the defendant

under this Act”); see also e.g. Simmons, 508 F. Supp. at 552 (denying motion for default

judgment for failure to satisfy SCRA affidavit requirement); Bank of Nova Scotia, 2008 WL

501263 at 1-3 (same); Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2008 WL 4748202 at 1-2 (same).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Final Default Judgment (Doc. 33)

IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk’s Office shall reopen this case.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01269-ROS Document 44 Filed 08/21/09 Page 4 of 4