Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00638/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00638-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

Dean Wine, as trustee of the Plaintiff

Taft-Hartley trust funds, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Winifred Electric, Inc., an Arizona

corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0638-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant Winifred Electric, Inc. on March 31,

2009, asserting various federal law claims brought to enforce the terms of collective

bargaining agreements between Defendant and Plaintiff IBEW Local Union No. 640.

Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #7. 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. ##5-6), 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). The Court must consider seven specific

factors in deciding whether to grant default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to

Plaintiffs, (2) the merits of the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount

of money at stake, if any, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts,

Case 2:09-cv-00638-DGC Document 8 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 -

(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).

Plaintiffs assert in their motion that the Eitel factors favor default judgment (see Dkt.

#7 at 2), but do not explain why. Nor is it entirely clear from the supporting affidavit that

each Eitel factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs. See Dkt. #7-2.

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. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. #7) is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiffs 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-00638-DGC Document 8 Filed 05/22/09 Page 2 of 2