Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00491/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00491-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 

Dorothy Michols, an individual,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Regency Park Capital 2011, Inc., an 

Arizona corporation; Ranjit Singh, an 

individual, 

Defendants.

No. CV 12-00491-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Application for Entry of Default Judgment Against 

Defendants” (Doc. 11). Despite its name, this “application” is a motion for default 

judgment. Clerk’s entry of default has already been entered. (Doc. 9.) 

Plaintiff “requests that a jury determine her damages.” (Doc. 11 at 2.) However, 

“in a default case neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has a constitutional right to a jury 

trial on the issue of damages.” Dierschke v. O’Cheskey, 975 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir. 

1992); see also Mwani v. Bin Ladin, 244 F.R.D. 20, 24 (D.D.C. 2007) (rejecting 

“Plaintiffs’ claim that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Seventh Amendment 

trigger a right to a jury determination of damages with respect to a Rule 55(b) evidentiary 

motion,” and citing supporting cases). Rule 55(b)(2) only requires a jury trial where a 

“federal statutory right to a jury trial exists.” There is only one federal statute which 

requires a jury trial. See 10A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure 

(Civil) § 2688, at 69 (3d ed. 1998) (explaining that only 28 U.S.C. § 1874, regarding 

Case 2:12-cv-00491-NVW Document 12 Filed 04/16/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

certain actions on bonds, contains a statutory jury trial right). Plaintiff does not sue under 

that statute. 

In this circumstance, the Court has discretion to resolve Plaintiff’s motion through 

declarations and attached documents, a live hearing without a jury, or a live hearing with 

a jury. 10 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.32[2][c]–[e] (3d ed. 

2010). In this circumstance, a live hearing without a jury regarding damages would be 

the most effective. In addition, Plaintiff will be required to submit a trial brief regarding 

the legal sufficiency of certain of her claims. See id. § 55.32[1][b] (legal sufficiency of 

claims not established by default). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, by May 10, 2012, Plaintiff shall submit a 

trial brief of no more than fifteen pages on the following issues: 

 Regarding Count 3 (Defamation Per Se), whether this counts states a claim 

upon which relief can be granted in light of the failure to allege any 

statements or their falsity. 

 Regarding Count 4 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress), whether 

this count states a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

 Regarding Count 5 (Arizona Employment Protection Act), whether this 

count states a claim upon which relief can be granted in light of A.R.S. 

§ 23-1501(3)(b). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff and her counsel shall appear on May 

17, 2012 at 2:30 p.m., at 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona, Courtroom 504, for 

an evidentiary hearing and oral argument regarding Plaintiff’s “Application for Entry of 

Default Judgment Against Defendants” (Doc. 11). 

Dated this 16th day of April, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00491-NVW Document 12 Filed 04/16/12 Page 2 of 2