Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01461/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01461-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of 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

Before the Court is a Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion”) filed by De Lage 

Landen Financial Services Inc. (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. 55) No response to the Motion has been 

filed. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion in part.

I. Background

On March 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Dynamic Imaging 

Distribution LLC (“Defendant”),

1

alleging several breach of contract claims arising from 

equipment lease agreements. (Doc. 1) Defendant appeared in the case and answered the 

Complaint on April 22, 2019. (Doc. 12) On December 19, 2019, the Court granted 

Defendant’s counsel’s ex parte application to withdraw as counsel and ordered Defendant 

to obtain new counsel. (Doc. 40) On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary 

judgment. (Doc. 43) On January 21, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for extension of time 

1 Plaintiff also named several unknown parties as defendants in this case. However, 

the unknown parties were never ascertained, and Plaintiff files the Motion solely against

Dynamic Imaging Distribution LLC. (Doc. 55) 

De Lage Landen Financial Services 

Incorporated,

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Dynamic Imaging Distribution LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-19-01461-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:19-cv-01461-SPL Document 56 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 5
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

to retain new counsel, and the Court granted the motion. (Docs. 46, 49) Defendant has not 

appeared in this case since January. 

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application for entry of default. (Doc. 50) The 

Clerk of Court entered default the next day. (Doc. 51) On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(Doc. 52) The Court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff failed to 

address the required factors as outlined in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986).

(Doc. 52) Plaintiff then filed the Motion, addressing the Eitel factors. (Doc. 55) 

II. Discussion

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

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Factors the court may consider 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 policy favoring 

a decision on the merits. See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72. 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. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). 

A. Possible Prejudice to Plaintiff

The first factor weighs in favor of granting the Motion. Defendant has not appeared 

in this action since January 21, 2020. (Doc. 46) If Plaintiff’s motion is not granted, then

Plaintiff will likely be without other recourse for recovery. 

B. Merits of Plaintiff’s Claims and the Sufficiency of the Complaint

When the complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief, the second and third factors 

favor a default judgment. See Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388-89 (9th Cir. 1978). 

The Court finds that, taking the allegations in the Complaint at true, Plaintiff has

sufficiently stated claims for relief against Defendant.

C. Amount of Money at Stake

Under the fourth factor, “the court must consider the amount of money at stake in 

Case 2:19-cv-01461-SPL Document 56 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 5
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

relation to the seriousness of Defendant’s conduct.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld 

Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 500 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Plaintiff carries the burden of proving 

its damages and requests for other relief. See Bd. of Trs. of the Boilermaker Vacation Tr. 

v. Skelly, Inc., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 

1. Damages

Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $588,205.93 plus $154,541.47 in accrued

interest through December 26, 2019, totaling $742,747.40. (Doc. 55 at 4) However, 

Plaintiff also submits an affidavit stating that the amount owed in principal and interest as 

of December 26, 2019 totals $723,261.16. (Docs. 44-1; 55 at 5-6) Plaintiff further requests 

accruing interest on the principal amount of $588,205.93 at the rate of 18% per annum 

from December 27, 2019 until entry of judgment, in addition to post-judgment interest on 

the principal amount following entry of judgment at the applicable federal rate until paid 

in full. (Doc. 55 at 4) 

The Court finds that $723,261.16 is an appropriate amount of damages in this case

because the amount is ascertainable and verified by supporting documentation. The Court 

further finds that accruing interest on the principal amount at the rate of 18% per annum 

from December 27, 2019 to the date of the entry of judgment is appropriate in this case.

The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s request for post-judgment interest is appropriate in 

this case. 

2. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $23,921.40 and costs in the amount 

of $683.39. (Doc. 55 at 4) Plaintiff did not submit any accounting records or affidavits to 

verify the requested amount of attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel did 

not submit any accounting records or affidavits justifying the claim for attorney’s fees and 

costs. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently proven its entitlement to 

attorney’s fees and costs in this case. 

D. Possible Dispute Concerning Material Facts

Given the sufficiency of the Complaint and Defendant’s default, the Court finds that

Case 2:19-cv-01461-SPL Document 56 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 5
4

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

no genuine dispute of material facts would preclude granting the Motion. 

E. Whether Default Was Due to Excusable Neglect

Defendant initially appeared in this case but has not responded for six months. The 

Court finds that it is unlikely that Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment and the resulting default was the result of excusable neglect. 

F. The Policy Favoring a Decision on the Merits

“Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 

782 F.2d at 1472. But the mere existence of Rule 55(b) indicates that this preference, 

standing alone, is not dispositive. Moreover, Defendant’s unexplained absence at this 

juncture of the case makes a decision on the merits impossible. The Court therefore is not 

precluded from entering default judgment against Defendant. See Emp. Painters’ Tr. v. 

Ethan Enter., Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2007).

III. Conclusion

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and supporting documents, and having 

considered the Eitel factors as a whole, the Court concludes that the entry of default 

judgment is appropriate. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 55) is granted in part;

2. That default judgment is entered pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 55(b)(2) in favor of Plaintiff De Lage Landen Financial Services 

Incorporated against Defendant Dynamic Imaging Distribution LLC for the 

amount of $723,261.16 plus pre-judgment interest on the principle sum at the 

rate of 0.18 per annum from December 27, 2019 until the date of this Order;

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:19-cv-01461-SPL Document 56 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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. That all outstanding motions are denied as moot; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this 

action.

Dated this 8th day of June, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-01461-SPL Document 56 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 5