Knapp v. Invictus Protective Services LLC

          ORDER AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

          Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff 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.

         I. Background

         On 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.)

         On 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.

         On 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.)

         On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (Doc. 18.)

         II. Default Judgment

         The “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).

         The 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).

         Having reviewed the complaint and default judgment motion, the Court finds that the Eitel factors favor default judgment in the amount of $2, 775.

         A. Possible Prejudice To Plaintiff

         The 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).

         B. Merits Of Claims And ...