Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02276/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02276-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 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

Best Western International, Inc., an

Arizona non-profit corporation 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Melbourne Hotel Investors, LLC, and

Robert D. Falor,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-2276-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Best Western International, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff")

Amended Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Melbourne Hotel Investors, LLC.

(“Defendant Melbourne”) (Dkt.#18). 

By way of background, on September 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed its initial complaint in this

matter naming Defendant Melbourne and Defendant Robert Falor. (Dkt.#1). Plaintiff sought

damages amounting to $130,000 plus an award of attorney’s fees and costs. (Id.). On

December 27, 2006, based upon Defendant Melbourne’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s

complaint, Plaintiff applied for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure with the Clerk of the Court. (Dkt.#7). The Clerk of the Court granted the

application on December 28, 2006. (Dkt.#9). On December 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed its

original motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) Fed.R.Civ.P.. (Dkt.#10).

Case 2:06-cv-02276-MHM Document 19 Filed 10/11/07 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 -

However, before the Court could rule on the original motion, Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 15(a)

Fed.R.Civ.P., filed the instant Amended Complaint against Defendants Melbourne and Falor

seeking damages in the excess of $343,000 as well as attorney’s fees and costs. (Dkt.#13).

The significance of the filing of the Amended Complaint for purposes of Plaintiff’s original

motion for default judgment is that it mooted the request. Notably, an “amended complaint

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Forsyth v.

Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

1967); see also Vanguard Financial Service Corp. v. Johnson, 736 F.Supp. 832, 835 (N.D.

Ill. 1990) (denying as moot plaintiff’s motion for default judgment where amended complaint

subsequently filed); Nelson v. Nationwide Mortg. Corp., 659 F.Supp. 611, 615 (D.D.C.

1987) (same). 

The Court advised Plaintiff’s counsel of the significance of the Amended Complaint as

to the original motion for default judgment at the August 20, 2007, order to show cause

hearing. (Dkt.#17). Specifically, the Court directed Plaintiff’s counsel to verify whether the

motion for default judgment was based upon the original complaint or now viable Amended

Complaint. The Court further instructed that “[i]f the Motion was based upon the original

complaint [Plaintiff] shall request entry of default as to the amended complaint if

appropriate.” (Id.). After reviewing the record, Plaintiff filed the instant Amended Motion

for default judgment on August 27, 2007. (Dkt.#18). However, Plaintiff has failed to

properly comply with the Court’s order and the requirements of Rule 55 with its instant

Amended Motion. Notably, instead of following the sequential two-step process of first

obtaining entry of default by the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Rule 55(a) and then moving

for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) Fed.R.Civ.P., Plaintiff has skipped the first

step and simply moved for default judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th

Cir. 1986) (discussing two-step process). Such practice is deficient because Plaintiff has not

demonstrated service of the Amended Complaint upon Defendant Melbourne, which is

Case 2:06-cv-02276-MHM Document 19 Filed 10/11/07 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

1

Plaintiff’s instant Amended Motion states that Plaintiff has served the original

complaint, but does not indicate whether the Amended Complaint has been served.

(Dkt.#18).

- 3 -

required for an entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a) entered by the Clerk.1 As such, the

Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice to be refiled after proper compliance

with Rule 55 Fed.R.Civ.P.. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for

default judgment. (Dkt.#18). 

DATED this 10th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02276-MHM Document 19 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 3