Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01451/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01451-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

Gregory R. Kantor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Monument Homes Realty & Investment,

LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1451-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting federal and state law claims

based on Defendant’s alleged failure to pay Plaintiff wages and commissions earned during

his employment with Defendant. Dkt. #1. Defendant was served with process on August 12,

2008. Dkt. #5. Defendant has not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. The

Clerk entered Defendant’s default. Dkt. #7. Plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment

seeking an award of nearly $300,000 in damages. Dkt. #9.

Once a party’s default has been entered, the district court has discretion to grant

default judgment against that party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d

1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Factors the court may consider in deciding whether to grant

default judgment include (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of the

claim, (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 strong policy favoring a decision on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782

Case 2:08-cv-01451-DGC Document 11 Filed 01/16/09 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

1

Plaintiff’s motion does not conform to the font size required by Local Rule of Civil

Procedure 7.1(b)(1). All future filings by Plaintiff or his counsel shall comply fully with the

Court’s Local Rules.

- 2 -

F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); see Dolezal v. Fritch, No. CV-08-1362-PHX-DGC,

2008 WL 4704300, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 24, 2008). In applying the Eitel factors, “the

factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be

taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(d) (“Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than

those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive

pleading.”).

Plaintiff does not address the Eitel factors. Nor has he presented evidence establishing

the monetary damages he seeks. Because Plaintiff has not met his default judgment burden,

the Court will deny his motion without prejudice.1

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. #9) is denied

without prejudice. 

DATED this 16th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01451-DGC Document 11 Filed 01/16/09 Page 2 of 2