Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01746/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01746-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

Hesam Mohajerin, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Pinal County, a political subdivision of

the State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1746-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Request to Enter Default against the Langan Defendants.

Dkt. #34. The Langan Defendants have objected to the request and filed a reply in support

of their objection. Dkt. ##36, 40. Plaintiff has responded to the objection. Dkt. #39.

Plaintiff claims that the Langan Defendants were served with a copy of the original

complaint on November 20, 2007, and failed to file an answer within 20 days. The Langan

Defendants dispute that they were served properly on November 20, 2007, but argue, in any

event, that they have now filed an answer to the Amended Complaint that was filed on

December 10, 2007.

Defendants’ original Answer to the Amended Complaint was not filed on behalf of

the Langan Defendants. Dkt. #35. Two days later, however, the Langan Defendants filed

an Errata and Corrected Answer purporting to assert defenses on behalf of the Langan

Defendants. Dkt. ##37, 38. On January 2, 2008, Defendants filed an Amended Answer,

again assserting defenses on behalf of the Langan Defendants. Dkt. #41. 

Even if the Clerk were to enter default on the basis of the Langan Defendants’ failure

to answer the original complaint within 20 days, this Court would be required to exercise

Case 2:07-cv-01746-DGC Document 42 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

discretion in determining whether to enter a default judgment. “Factors which may be

considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of a default judgment include:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim,

(3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the

possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was due to

excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

Considering these factors, the Court concludes that it would not exercise its discretion to

enter a default judgment against the Langan Defendants. In particular, only a brief delay has

occurred since an answer to the original complaint was due; a Case Management Order has

been entered (Dkt. #28), it provides ample time for discovery and motion practice, and the

late filing of the Langan Defendants’ answer will not delay the resolution of this case; the

Court therefore cannot conclude that Plaintiff has been prejudiced by the delay; Defendants

assert their belief that they had 20 days to file an answer after the filing of the Amended

Complaint; and, most importantly, the strong policy favoring decision on the merits militates

against the entry of a default judgment in this case. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request

to enter default. 

The Court is troubled, however, by the tone and language of defense counsel’s reply

in support of the Langan Defendants’ objection to the entry of default. The reply accuses

Plaintiff’s counsel of “improper gamesmanship,” “vexatious multiplication of this litigation,”

“a frivolous waste of time,” making “irrational” arguments, “manipulat[ing] events,” acting

“in bad faith,” making “groundless arguments,” asserting “an absurd position,” and making

arguments that “are pure nonsense” and “highly unprofessional.” Dkt. #40. Such language

is unnecessarily strident and has no place in a court filing. The Court does not view

Plaintiff’s counsel as having acted improperly in this case. Even if defense counsel held that

view, she is capable of making her arguments in measured and professional language and

should do so in the future. The Langan Defendants’ request for costs and attorneys’ fees is

denied.

Case 2:07-cv-01746-DGC Document 42 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s request to enter default against the Langan Defendants (Dkt. #34)

is denied.

2. The Amended Answer filed on January 2, 2008 shall be deemed the operative

defense response to the Amended Complaint.

3. All terms of the Court’s Case Management Order (Dkt. #28) shall remain in

effect.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01746-DGC Document 42 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 3