United States District Court, D. Arizona
CWT Canada II LP., an Ontario, Canada limited partnership, et al., Plaintiffs,
Elizabeth J. Danzik, an individual, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
G. Campbell United States District Judge
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.
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.
The Motion for Default Judgment.
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).
Possible Prejudice to Plaintiff.
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.
The Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims and the Sufficiency of
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.
The Amount of Money at Stake.
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.
Possible Dispute Concerning Material Facts.
the sufficiency of the complaint and Defendant's default,
“no genuine dispute of material facts would preclude
granting [Plaintiffs'] motion.” Cal.