United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge.
Brandon Knapp has filed a motion for default judgment against
Defendants Invictus Protective Services, LLC, Ryan Sudrick,
and Jane Doe Sudrick (now known to be Kristi Sudrick)
(collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. 18.) For
reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.
February 11, 2019, Plaintiff brought this action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 201 et seq., the Arizona Minimum Wage Act
(“AMWA”), and the Arizona Wage Act
(“AWA”). (Doc. 7 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges
that he worked for Defendants as a security guard from
September to December 2018 and that Defendants failed to pay
him the final paycheck owed to him. (Id.
¶¶ 26, 28.) Plaintiff also alleges that he worked
approximately 40 hours of overtime yet was paid his regular
rate of pay, rather than at one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay. (Id. ¶¶ 38-42.)
March 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed proof that Defendants were
served with the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
and Summonses on February 26, 2019. (Docs. 13, 14, 15.) Thus,
Defendants' responses to the FAC were due March 19, 2019.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A). Defendants have not yet responded
to the FAC, nor have they appeared in this action.
March 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed an application for entry of
default against Defendants. (Doc. 16.) On March 22, 2019, the
Clerk entered default against defendants. (Doc. 17.)
April 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for default
judgment. (Doc. 18.)
“decision whether to enter a default judgment is a
discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d
1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Although the Court should
consider and weigh relevant factors as part of the
decision-making process, it “is not required to make
detailed findings of fact.” Fair Hous. of Marin v.
Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002).
following factors may be considered when deciding whether
default judgment is appropriate under Rule 55(b): (1) the
possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of
the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the
amount of money at stake, (5) the possibility of factual
disputes, (6) whether the default was due to excusable
neglect, and (7) the policy favoring decisions on the merits.
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.
1986). In considering the merits and sufficiency of the
complaint, the court accepts as true the complaint's
well-pled factual allegations, but the plaintiff must
establish the damages sought in the complaint. Geddes v.
United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977).
reviewed the complaint and default judgment motion, the Court
finds that the Eitel factors favor default judgment
in the amount of $2, 775.
Possible Prejudice To Plaintiff
first Eitel factor weighs in favor of default
judgment. Defendants have not participated in this action at
all-they have not responded to the FAC or to the motion for
default judgment. If Plaintiff's motion is not granted,
Plaintiff will be without other recourse for recovery.
PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172,
1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
Merits Of Claims And ...