Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00168/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00168-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lori Eichenberger
Plaintiff
Falcon Air Express Incorporated
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

Lori Eichenberger, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Falcon Air Express Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-14-00168-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The Court held a hearing on February 6, 2015. On the basis of the hearing and the 

record in this case, the Court has determined that it must enter default judgment against 

Defendant Falcon Air Express Incorporated. 

 The Court set a case management schedule for this case on August 26, 2014. 

Doc. 18. The order cautioned the parties that the deadlines established by the Court were 

real and that the Court would not, absent truly extraordinary circumstances, extend the 

schedule. Id. at 5. 

 A few months later, Defendant’s counsel moved to withdraw. The Court set a 

hearing for December 19, 2014, and ordered a representative of Defendant to participate. 

The hearing was held as scheduled, and the general manager of Defendant, Nelson 

Ramiz, Jr., participated. Defense counsel stood by their motion to withdraw. The Court 

explained to Mr. Ramiz that a corporate defendant cannot appear in court without 

counsel, and that the Court would be required to enter a default judgment against 

Defendant if it did not find replacement counsel. Mr. Ramiz said he understood, and that 

Case 2:14-cv-00168-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Defendant planned to locate replacement counsel promptly. The Court accordingly 

granted Defendant until January 23, 2015, for new counsel to appear. 

 The Court also discussed discovery issues. Defendant had not responded to 

written discovery served by Plaintiff. The Court extended the discovery response date to 

February 6, 2015, and advised Mr. Ramiz that the new defense counsel would need to be 

prepared to provide the requested documents and interrogatory answers by that date. The 

Court also told the parties it would hold a second case management conference on 

February 6, 2015, to adjust the remainder of the litigation schedule in light of the delay 

caused by the motion to withdraw and the failure to respond to discovery. 

 Although new counsel did appear for Defendant, that counsel promptly moved to 

withdraw. Doc. 29. Counsel’s motion to withdraw explains that Defendant has failed to 

respond to counsel’s repeated attempts to communicate regarding the case and the 

pending deadlines, leaving counsel unable to properly represent Defendants. Id. The 

Court promptly set a hearing on the motion to withdraw for February 6, 2015. Doc. 30. 

The Court specifically required Mr. Ramiz to appear by telephone at the hearing, 

directing him to call the Court’s chambers before the hearing. Id. 

 Mr. Ramiz did not appear or participate in the hearing. The Court’s staff tried to 

call him twice on a number used to reach him in the past, but received no answer. Staff 

left a message, but Mr. Rmiz never returned the call. Defense counsel stated during the 

hearing that he emailed a copy of the Court’s order to Mr. Ramiz and emphasized his 

need to participate in the hearing. Defense counsel said he had received other responses 

from Mr. Ramiz, using the same email address, since he sent the email regarding the 

hearing, suggesting that Mr. Ramiz received the order. Counsel also sent a copy of the 

order to Mr. Ramiz by overnight mail so that he received if before the hearing. 

 Thus, the Court is faced with the following situation: Defendant clearly 

understands that it must be represented by counsel in federal court. Defendant clearly 

understands that default judgment will be entered if it is unrepresented. Defendant 

clearly understands that discovery was due on February 6, 2015, and that a second case 

Case 2:14-cv-00168-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

management conference was to occur on that day. And Mr. Ramiz was directly ordered 

by the Court to participate in the February 6 hearing. 

 Despite this knowledge, Mr. Ramiz failed to appear at the hearing as ordered, 

failed to provide the discovery due by February 6, and failed to communicate with 

counsel so as to enable counsel to litigate this case and participate in the second case 

management conference. Defendant did so knowing of counsel’s motion to withdraw 

and knowing that the withdrawal would result in a default judgment being entered. 

 In addition to this situation, Plaintiff’s counsel explained that he has another case 

pending against Defendant in this court, CV-14-2705 PHX NVW. Defendant recently 

has failed to appear in that case as well. 

 The Ninth Circuit has identified five factors that a district court must consider 

before dismissing a case or declaring a default: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice 

to the other party; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; 

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 

788 (9th Cir. 2011). The first three factors favor entry of a default judgment in this case. 

This litigation has already been delayed by Defendant’s problems with counsel and its 

failure to comply with discovery obligations; the Court cannot effectively manage its 

docket when a party presents repeated and rapid withdrawals of counsel and refuses to 

appear and participate in hearings when ordered; and Plaintiff is prejudiced when 

discovery receives no response and the case is delayed by Defendant’s inaction. The 

Fourth factor, as always, weighs against default. The fifth factor urges caution, but when 

two counsel have withdrawn in the last two months, deadlines have been missed, and 

Defendant has disregarded a clear order to participate in a hearing, the Court is persuaded 

that additional steps would only result in further similar conduct. The Court accordingly 

finds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of default. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Defense counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 29) is granted. 

Case 2:14-cv-00168-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

 2. The Court will enter default judgment against Defendant. 

 3. Plaintiff shall, by February 20, 2015, submit a proposed form of judgment 

with evidence supporting the damages and other relief requested in the 

proposed order.

 Dated this 9th day of February, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00168-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 4