Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00082/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00082-0/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

GE Capital Franchise Finance

Corporation, a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Cow Tippers Aramingo, a Pennsylvania

limited liability company, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0082-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff GE Capital Franchise Finance Corporation filed a complaint against

Defendants Cow Tippers Aramingo, LLC, Horn Restaurants, LLC, Sensational Sandwich

Company Aramingo, LLC, Charles Fletcher, Jeff Horn, and James Sweet on

January 13, 2009 asserting various federal law claims arising from Defendants’ alleged

failure to pay pursuant to certain loan agreements. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has filed a motion for

default judgment pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #14. For

reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice.

Because Defendants’ default has been properly entered under Rule 55(a)

(see Dkt. ##10-11), the Court has discretion to grant default judgment against Defendants

pursuant to Rule 55(b). See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); Draper

v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). 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,

Case 2:09-cv-00082-DGC Document 15 Filed 05/22/09 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 -

if any, (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).

 Because Plaintiff does not address the Eitel factors (see Dkt. #14), the Court

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

June 5, 2009 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

damages. See Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (factual

allegations of the complaint relating to the amount of damages are not taken as true on a

motion for default judgment); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(2)(6) (“An allegation – other than one

relating to the amount of damages – is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the

allegation is not denied.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. #14) is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff shall have until June 5, 2009 to file a new motion for default

judgment consistent with this order.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00082-DGC Document 15 Filed 05/22/09 Page 2 of 2