January 14, 2014
Liberty West Regional Center, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company Plaintiff,
Salvatore Carpanzano, a/k/a John Salvatore Carpanzano, et al., Defendants.
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Liberty West Regional Center, LLC has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting the entry of default judgment against Defendants Salvatore Carpanzano, Marisa Belcastro Carpanzano, (collectively the "Carpanzanos"), and Samba Financial Group Escrow & Consulting Services U.S.A., LLC ("Samba"). The Court will deny the motion without prejudice.
Default was entered as to the Carpanzanos and Samba on November 5, 2013. Doc. 21. Once a party's default has been entered, the district court has discretion to grant default judgment against that party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Factors the court must consider in deciding whether to grant default judgment 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 strong policy favoring a decision on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In applying these factors, "the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true." Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d) ("Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading."). "However, necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default." Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992)
Plaintiff's motion does not address the Eitel factors. See Doc. 28. It is therefore unclear to the Court whether these factors favor the entry of default judgment. The Court will accordingly deny the motion for default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until January 31, 2014 to refile the motion. The new motion shall fully address each Eitel factor and also shall include an explanation and evidence sufficient to support any calculation of requested damages. See Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 28) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until January 31, 2014 to refile the motion.