Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00839/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00839-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

Tamisha Hill, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

First Integral Recovery, LLC; and O.J.

Lawal & Associates,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-839-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Tamisha Hill filed a complaint against Defendants First Integral Recovery,

LLC and O.J. Lawal & Associates on April 21, 2009, asserting violations of the Fair Debt

Collections Practices Act and a common law claim for invasion of privacy. Dkt. #1.

Plaintiff has filed motions for default judgment. Dkt. ##10-11. For reasons that follow, the

Court will deny the motions without prejudice.

Because Defendants’ default has been entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure (see Dkt. ##8-9), 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). 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).

Case 2:09-cv-00839-DGC Document 12 Filed 08/31/09 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 -

 Because Plaintiff does not address the Eitel factors, the Court will deny the motions

for default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until September 18, 2009 to

refile the motions. The new motions 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. Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment (Dkt. ##10-11) are denied without

prejudice.

2. Plaintiff shall have until September 18, 2009 to file new motions for default

judgment consistent with this order.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00839-DGC Document 12 Filed 08/31/09 Page 2 of 2