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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

John R. Georgas, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

James R. Hladik, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00382-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is pro se Plaintiff John R. Georgas’s Application for Entry of Default 

(Doc. 11) and the Clerk’s Entry of Default (Doc. 12). 

 In the ordinary course, the Court would now require that Plaintiff file a Motion for 

Default Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). Under that rule, the Court 

has discretion to grant default judgment against Defendants. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 

F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Factors the Court should consider in deciding whether to grant default judgment include 

(1) the possibility of prejudice to Plaintiff, (2) the merits of the claims, (3) the sufficiency 

of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, if any, (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 v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 

(9th Cir. 1986). Considering the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court undertook an 

initial evaluation of the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.) and finds 

numerous defects in it as well as two of the Certificates of Service (Docs. 7-9). 

Case 2:18-cv-00382-SMB Document 13 Filed 06/01/18 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 

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 

A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must contain “sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007)). Even where a complaint has the factual elements of a cause of action 

present but scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain 

statement of the claim,” it may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). Sparling v. 

Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). A dismissal for failure to state a 

claim can be based on either (1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient 

facts to support a cognizable legal claim. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 

699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

As a threshold matter, the Complaint lacks any statement of the grounds for this 

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, as required by Rule 8(a). This defect alone is cause for 

the Court to dismiss the Complaint. See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 

(S.D. Cal. 2005). Plaintiff’s Complaint also does not state what the specific legal basis is 

for his claims—whether that be a state law cause of action such as negligence or a federal 

cause of action under a particular statute—and the Complaint thus fails to adequately state 

a claim under Rule 8. The Court must therefore dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, but will allow 

Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint to cure the defects. See Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court advises Plaintiff that resources for persons 

proceeding pro se are available on the Court’s website, www.azd.uscourts.gov, under the 

tab marked “For those Proceeding Without an Attorney.” 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Federal Court 

Unlike state courts, federal courts only have jurisdiction over a limited number of 

cases, and those cases typically involve either a controversy between citizens of different 

states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law (“federal question 

jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The United States Supreme Court has stated 

Case 2:18-cv-00382-SMB Document 13 Filed 06/01/18 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 

that a federal court must not disregard or evade the limits on its subject matter 

jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erections Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Thus, a 

federal court is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and to 

dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 

372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). To proceed in federal 

court, a plaintiff must allege enough in the complaint for the court to conclude it has 

subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 

Miller, 5 Fed. Practice & Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014). 

In addition to the defects identified above, the allegations contained in the 

Complaint are insufficient for the Court to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction over 

this matter. First, from the face of the Complaint, the Court cannot conclude that it has 

diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims because the parties do not appear to be citizens 

of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Second, although Plaintiff does not identify any law serving as the basis of his 

claims, Plaintiff’s allegations do not appear to raise any claim under federal law. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. Because Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient for the Court to conclude it 

has subject matter jurisdiction in this case, the Court must dismiss the Complaint for this 

additional reason. 

C. Service of Process 

 Plaintiff filed three Certificates of Service (Docs. 7, 8, 9) for service of the 

Complaint and Summons in this case, but it appears that service on two of the Defendants 

(Docs. 7, 8 (Gerald Trkula & Daniel Ratkus)) may not have been proper under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Specifically, Rule 4(e)(2) provides that a defendant may be 

served through “an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of 

process.” While Plaintiff’s Certificates of Service allege that Trkula and Ratkus were 

served through Maria Amarillas, their “Legal Assistant” who stated she is authorized to 

accept service on their behalf, they were served at their place of work and, presumably, in 

their professional capacities. Among its other defects, the Complaint does not state that 

Case 2:18-cv-00382-SMB Document 13 Filed 06/01/18 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 

these Defendants are being sued in anything other than their personal capacities. Any 

future service of process method must be aligned with the parties as identified in the 

Complaint. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED vacating the Clerk’s Entry of Default (Doc. 12). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) for failure 

to state a claim. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED permitting Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint 

by June 22, 2018, that complies with the provisions of this Order and the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this action 

without further notice if Plaintiff fails to make the required filing by June 22, 2018. 

 Dated this 1st day of June, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00382-SMB Document 13 Filed 06/01/18 Page 4 of 4