Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CWT Canada II LP v. Danzik

United States District Court, D. Arizona

October 17, 2016

CWT Canada II LP., an Ontario, Canada limited partnership, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Elizabeth J. Danzik, an individual, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

          David G. Campbell United States District Judge

         Plaintiffs have filed a motion for default judgment against Elizabeth J. Danzik and Deja II, LLC pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 34. Pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. 47), default has been set aside for Ms. Danzik and the motion is moot with respect to her. This order relates only to Deja II, LLC.

         I. Background.

         This case is a civil action brought against Deja II, LLC (“Deja”) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, conversion, and money had and received. Doc. 1 at 1. The complaint was filed on March 4, 2016. Doc. 1. Deja has not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. On June 29, 2016, the Clerk entered default. Doc. 16. Plaintiffs filed the motion for default judgment on August 4, 2016. Doc. 34.

         II. The Motion for Default Judgment.

         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 may 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 policy favoring a decision on the merits. See Eitel v.McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72. In applying the Eitel 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).

         A. Possible Prejudice to Plaintiff.

         The first Eitel factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs served process on Deja on April 1, 2016. Doc. 11. Deja has not answered or otherwise appeared in this action. If Plaintiffs' motion is not granted, Plaintiffs “will likely be without other recourse for recovery.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Security Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

         B. The Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims and the Sufficiency of the Complaint.

         The second and third Eitel factors favor a default judgment where the complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief. See Cal. Security Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d at 1175; Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388-89 (9th Cir. 1978)). A review of Plaintiffs' complaint and the attached exhibits shows that Plaintiffs have stated valid causes of action against Defendant. See Doc. 1 at 1.

         C. The Amount of Money at Stake.

         Under the fourth Eitel factor, the court considers the amount of money at stake in relation to the seriousness of the defendant's conduct. See Cal. Security Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d at 1176. Plaintiffs seek $999, 975.00, $332, 324.50 in pre-judgment interest through July 22, 2016, and post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

         D. Possible Dispute Concerning Material Facts.

         Given the sufficiency of the complaint and Defendant's default, “no genuine dispute of material facts would preclude granting [Plaintiffs'] motion.” Cal. SecurityCa ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.