Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01347/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01347-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
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

Daniel F. Gruender, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Harald Rosell; The Gardiner Law Firm,

P.S., a Washington corporation; and

D. Bruce Gardiner, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1347-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Daniel Gruender commenced this action by filing a complaint against

Defendants on June 23, 2009. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to perform obligations

under certain promissory notes. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach

of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and specific performance. Dkt. #1.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for entry of default and default judgment against

Defendant Harald Rosell. Dkt. #45. The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in

part.

Plaintiff has presented evidence that it served process on Defendant Rosell on

November 19, 2009. See Dkt. ##41, 45-1. Rosell has failed to plead or otherwise defend.

The Court therefore will direct the Clerk to enter Rosell’s default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Once default has been entered, the Court has discretion to grant default judgment

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

Case 2:09-cv-01347-DGC Document 48 Filed 03/23/10 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 -

1980). 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, (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).

Plaintiff’s motion does not address the Eitel factors. The Court will therefore deny

the request for default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until April 2, 2010

to file a new motion fully addressing each Eitel factor.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default and default judgment (Dkt. #45) is

granted in part and denied in part.

2. The Clerk is directed to enter Defendant Harald Rosell’s default pursuant to

Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. Plaintiff shall have until April 2, 2010 to file a new motion for default

judgment.

DATED this 23rd day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01347-DGC Document 48 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 2