Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00563/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00563-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Savings Network, Inc.
Defendant
American Savings Network, LLC
Defendant
James B. Carr
Plaintiff
Anthony Diehl
Defendant
Roger S. Moran
Defendant
Phyllis L. York
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHYLLIS L. YORK, and JAMES B. 

CARR,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN SAVINGS NETWORK, 

INC., also known as AMERICAN 

SAVINGS NETWORK, LLC; ANTHONY 

DIEHL; and ROGER S. MORAN,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0563 KJM KJN (TEMP)

ORDER

This matter came before the court on December 31, 2015, for hearing of plaintiffs’ motion 

for default judgment against defendants American Savings Network, Inc., Anthony W. Diehl and 

Roger S. Moran. Plaintiff James Carr, an attorney, appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. No 

appearance was made by, or on behalf of, any defendant. 

On October 21, 2015, the previously assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order denying 

plaintiffs’ prior motion for default judgment and informing plaintiffs that there were “several 

impediments to the granting of plaintiffs’ motion.” (Dkt. No. 25 at 1.) In this regard, plaintiffs’ 

prior motion for default judgment failed to address the factors set forth in Eitel v. McCool, 782 

F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Additionally, plaintiffs’ complaint alleges a claim for fraud,

Case 2:15-cv-00563-KJM-DB Document 35 Filed 02/01/16 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

but fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The complaint also alleges a claim 

for “violation of the fair trade laws of the United States, pursuant to 15 USC Sections 41-58,” 

(Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 5), despite the fact that Title 15 U.S.C. ' 41 provides for the 

establishment of the Federal Trade Commission, is part of the Federal Trade Commission ACT 

(“FTCA”), and “no private right of action exists under the FTCA.” Days Inn of America 

Franchising, Inc. v. Windham, 699 F. Supp. 1581, 1582 (N.D. Ga. 1988). See also American 

Airlines v. Christensen, 967 F.2d 410, 414 (10th Cir. 1992) (“there is no private right of action 

under [FTCA]”). 

Moreover, the October 21, 2015 ordered also advised plaintiffs that neither their 

complaint nor their prior motion for default judgment attempted to address the basis for the 

court’s personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants.

1

 That order also advised plaintiffs

that, although service of the motion for default judgment on the defaulting defendants is generally 

not required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Rule 135(d), service of the 

motion on the defaulting defendants was prudent and that plaintiffs should include as part of their 

motion for default judgment plaintiffs’ evidence in support. 

Despite the guidance offered by the court’s October 21, 2015 order, plaintiffs failed to 

correct or address any of those issues in their December 31, 2015 motion for default judgment 

now pending before the court. Moreover, although the plaintiffs’ pending motion now seeks 

default judgment against all the defaulting defendants in this action, something that was not true 

of plaintiffs’ prior motion, this raises an additional issue, which is that the complaint lacks any 

factual allegations whatsoever involving defendants Diehl and Moran.

/////

/////

 

1

“[A] judgment entered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the parties is void . . . .” 

Pacific Atlantic Trading Co., Inc. v. M/V Main Exp., 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985). The 

Due Process Clause requires that the defendant have “certain minimum contacts” with the forum 

“such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and 

substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citations 

and internal quotation marks omitted). The party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of 

establishing that jurisdiction exists. Flynt Distrib. Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 

1984).

Case 2:15-cv-00563-KJM-DB Document 35 Filed 02/01/16 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

Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, 

and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

plaintiffs’ December 31, 2015 motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 30) is denied without 

prejudice to renewal.2 

Dated: February 1, 2016

york0563.mdj2.dwop.ord.docx

 

2

 In the event plaintiffs elect to again file a motion for default judgment, the court anticipates that 

plaintiffs, particularly attorney Carr, will pay close attention to the issues raised by this order and 

the court’s October 21, 2015 order, and will correct all of the identified issues before again 

seeking a default judgment from this court. 

Case 2:15-cv-00563-KJM-DB Document 35 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 3