Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00333/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00333-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

DLC DermaCare LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sixta Castillo, R.N., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-333-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Jeff Barson was served with process on March 3, 2010. Doc. 43. His

default was entered on May 25, 2010. Doc. 53. On June 7, 2010, he filed an answer and an

objection to the entry of default. Docs. 57, 58.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment against Barson and a motion to strike

his answer. Docs. 85, 86. The motions will be denied.

In deciding whether to grant default judgment under Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, the Court must consider multiple factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice

to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of the claims, (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. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Because Plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment does not address these factors, the motion will be denied.

Moreover, despite the untimely nature of Barson’s answer, Ninth Circuit law

precludes a default judgment against him. This Circuit recently emphasized that

Case 2:10-cv-00333-DGC Document 127 Filed 10/25/10 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 -

“‘[j]udgment by default is a drastic step appropriate only in extreme circumstances; a case

should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits.’” United States v. Signed Personal

Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

A defendant’s default may be set aside under Rule 55(c) for “good cause,” that is, where the

defendant is not culpable, where he has a meritorious defense, or where the plaintiff would

not be prejudiced. See Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Rests. Group, Inc., 375 F.3d

922, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2004).

Although Barson has not shown good cause, objecting to the entry of default based

solely on the fact that he has filed an answer (Doc. 58), the Court will grant him leave to

make that showing in light of his pro se status. Barson shall have until November 5, 2010

to file a motion to set aside the entry of default for good cause pursuant to Rule 55(c).

Barson is advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona (“Local Rules”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following

Internet website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules

of Civil Procedure may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office and are available online at

the Court’s Internet website: www.azd.uscourts.gov (follow hyperlink titled “Opinions/

Orders/Rules”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Jeff Barson (Doc. 85) and

motion to strike his answer (Doc. 86) are denied without prejudice.

2. Defendant Jeff Barson shall have until November 5, 2010 to file a motion to

set aside the entry of default for good cause pursuant to Rule 55(c).

DATED this 25th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00333-DGC Document 127 Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 2