Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00618/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00618-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Asset Acceptance, LLC
Defendant
George Geoffrey Kenefick
Defendant
Mundell Land and Livestock Company, Inc.
Counter Defendant
State of California Franchise Tax Board
Defendant
United States of America
Counter Claimant

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 

MUNDELL LAND AND LIVESTOCK 

COMPANY, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GEORGE GEOFFREY KENEFICK; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC; STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX 

BOARD; and All Persons Unknown 

Claiming any Legal or Equitable Right, 

Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the 

Property Described in the Complaint 

Adverse to Plaintiff’s Title Thereto, or any 

Cloud on Plaintiff’s Title Thereto, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0618-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

 On June 10, 2014, plaintiff Mundell Land and Livestock Company, Inc. filed a motion for 

entry of default judgment against defendants George Geoffrey Kenefrick, Asset Acceptance, 

LLC, and State of California Franchise Tax Board (“defendants”).1

 Plaintiff noticed the motion 

for hearing on July 23, 2014. As explained below, the motion for default judgment is deficient. 

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice and the July 23, 2014 hearing vacated. 

 1

 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California 

Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:14-cv-00618-KJM-EFB Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 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

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default may be entered against a party 

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought who fails to plead or otherwise defend 

against the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). However, “[a] defendant’s default does not 

automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 

238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 

(9th Cir. 1986)). Instead, the decision to grant or deny an application for default judgment lies 

within the district court’s sound discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 

1980). In making this determination, the court considers the following factors: 

(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 the 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). 

 Plaintiff’s application for default judgment amounts to little more than a statement 

informing the court that defendants are in default and that plaintiff seeks default judgment against 

defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). The motion does not address the 

Eitel factors or otherwise explain why default judgment is appropriate in this case. See ECF No. 

15-1 at 1-2. 

 Due to this deficiency, plaintiff’s application for default judgment is denied without 

prejudice. Plaintiff may renew the motion. In doing so, plaintiff must address the Eitel factors 

and explain why it is entitled to the relief sought. See Sierra Kiwi, Inc. v. Rui Wen, Inc., No. 

2:13-cv-1334-LKK-EFB, 2013 WL 5955066 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2013). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The July 23, 2014 hearing on plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment is 

vacated; and 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00618-KJM-EFB Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 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

2. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment, ECF No. 15, is denied without 

prejudice. 

DATED: July 11, 2014. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-00618-KJM-EFB Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 Page 3 of 3