Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00495/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00495-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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

Canal Insurance Company, a South

Carolina corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Petru Branc d/b/a Brancson Trucking

Company, an Arizona corporation;

Daniel Branc d/b/a Brancson Trucking

Company and Jane Doe Branc; and

Cristian Cobala and Jane Doe Cobala, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-495-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Canal Insurance Company has filed a motion for default judgment against

Defendants Petru Branc, Daniel Branc, and Cristian Cobala pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #21. The Court will deny the motion without

prejudice.

I. Background.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Defendants. Dkt. #1.

Defendants Petru Branc, Daniel Branc, and Cristian Cobala were served with process in

March 2008. Dkt. ##6-9. Defendants have failed to plead or otherwise defend this action.

The Clerk has entered Defendants’ default pursuant to Rule 55(a). Dkt. #20.

II. Discussion.

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

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

Case 2:08-cv-00495-DGC Document 22 Filed 05/22/08 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 -

1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Factors the court should 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 due to excusable

neglect, and (7) the policy favoring a decision on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,

1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); see PepsiCo, Inc. v. Los Potros Distribution Ctr., LLC, No. CV-07-

2425-PHX-DGC, 2008 WL 942283, at *1-4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 7, 2008).

Plaintiff’s motion does not address the Eitel factors. Nor does it include an affidavit

showing that Defendants are not minors or incompetents, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), or are

not in the military or otherwise exempted under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act

of 1940, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, Advisory Comm. Notes, Supplementary Note. Moreover,

the motion does not describe the nature of the default judgment sought, and Plaintiff has not

lodged a proposed order as required by Rule 7(b)(2) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

This is not Plaintiff’s first attempt at obtaining a default judgment in this matter. The

initial motion for default judgment was defective because it was filed prior to the entry of

Defendants’ default. See Dkt. #18.

The Court will deny the instant motion without prejudice. Plaintiff has until June 13,

2008, to file a proper motion for default judgment. The motion shall comply fully with

Rule 55 and the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion also shall address the

status of the Jane Doe Defendants.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. #21) is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff has until June 13, 2008 to file a motion for default judgment

consistent with this order.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00495-DGC Document 22 Filed 05/22/08 Page 2 of 2