Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00094/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00094-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

Hostnut.Com, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Go Daddy Software, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0094 PHX DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Strike Defendant s [sic] Answer and Enter Default

Judgment. See Doc. #19. Defendants have filed an opposition, with an attached affidavit

(Doc. #22), and Plaintiff has filed a reply (Doc. #24). 

The motion asks the Court to strike Defendants' answer as untimely and enter a

default judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that t heir

answer was not untimely because counsel for Plaintiff granted Defendants an oral

extension of time to respond. See Doc. #22. Plaintiff's counsel denies that any such oral

extension was given.

Defendants' argument is supported by an affidavit of the General Counsel of

Defendant Go Daddy Soft ware, Inc. The affidavit states that she is a member of the bar of

this court and that she received an oral extension of time to answer from Plaintiff's counsel.

As a member of the bar of this court, the General Counsel should be familiar with

LRCiv 83.7, which states that "[n]o agreement between parties or attorneys is binding, if

disputed, unless it is in writing, signed by the attorney of record or by the unrepresented

Case 2:05-cv-00094-DGC Document 30 Filed 10/19/05 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 -

p art y , or made orally in open court and on the record . . . ." Thus, even if an oral extension

of time was granted, it is not enforceable. Defendants' answer was untimely. 

Despite the untimely nature of Defendants' answer, Ninth Circuit law precludes t he

entry of a default judgment in this matter. The Ninth Circuit has held that "default

judgments are disfavored." TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 693 (9th

Cir. 2001). If the Court were t o grant a default, the default would be set aside if Defendants

established "good cause" for their failure to file a timely response to the Complaint. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). The Ninth Circuit has held that good cause exists when a defendant

did not engage in culpable conduct, the defendant has a merit orious defense, and

reopening the case would not prejudice the plaintiff. Faulk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th

Cir. 1984); see also TCI, 244 F.3d at 696. A defendant's conduct is not culp able if "the

defendant offers a credible, good faith exp lanat ion negating any intention to take

advantage of the opposing party, interfere wit h judicial decision-making, or otherwise

manipulate the legal process." TCI, 244 F.3d at 697. T he Court concludes that Defendants

did not engage in culpable conduct in this case. Because it also appears that Defendants

may have a merit orious defense and that denying default will not prejudice Plaintiff, the

Court will deny Plaintiff's motion. 

In support of t he mot ion, Plaintiff's counsel relied on Seventh Circuit law that is

directly at odds with Ninth Circuit law. In the future, Plaintiff's counsel should research

and cite relevant Ninth Circuit law when making arguments to the Court.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs [sic] Motion to Strike Defendants [sic]

Answer and Enter Default Judgment (Doc. #19) is denied.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00094-DGC Document 30 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2