Alston v. Midland Credit Management

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02196
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Michael A Alston, No. CV-25-02196-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Midland Credit Management, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pro se Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff “fails to 16 understand the two-step process required by Rule 55.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 17 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks default judgment pursuant to Rule 18 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the request is premature. Plaintiff has not 19 applied for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a), which must be done before default 20 judgment can be sought pursuant to Rule 55(b). Phillips v. Comm’n on Character & 21 Fitness, 2020 WL 4003368, *1 (D. Mont. 2020) (“[E]ntry of default by the clerk under 22 Rule 55(a) is a necessary prerequisite to an entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b). 23 . . . Because Phillips has not obtained an entry of default, his motion for a Rule 55(b) 24 default judgment is premature and should be denied.”). 25 To the extent that Plaintiff intends the filing at Doc. 15 to be an application for 26 entry of default, the docket of this removed action does not indicate that Defendants 27 Midland Credit Management, Midland Funding LLC, and Encore Capital Group have 28 been served. If these defendants have been served, Plaintiff must file proof of service. 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). After filing proof of service, Plaintiff may submit to the Clerk of 2 Court an application for entry of default. 3 Only after obtaining entry of default may Plaintiff file a motion for default 4 judgment. Far from being a mundane procedural motion, a motion for default judgment 5 is a case-dispositive motion which requires the Court to undertake an in-depth analysis. 6 See, e.g., Rosen v. Fasttrak Foods LLC, 2021 WL 2981590 (D. Ariz. 2021); Trident Inv. 7 Partners Inc. v. Evans, 2021 WL 75826 (D. Ariz. 2021). The “decision whether to enter 8 a default judgment is a discretionary one,” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th 9 Cir. 1980), and the Court considers various factors when deciding whether default 10 judgment is appropriate: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of 11 the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, (5) the 12 possibility of factual disputes, (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and 13 (7) the policy favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 14 (9th Cir. 1986). 15 Thus, motions for default judgment—at least the successful ones—are typically 16 fully developed, such that the Court has, from the papers, all that is necessary to grant or 17 deny relief, with or without a hearing. 2 Gensler, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rules 18 and Commentary, Rule 55, at 119 (2018) (“A live evidentiary hearing [on damages] is 19 not always required. Rather, the hearing requirement can be satisfied by the submission 20 of affidavits or other proper documentary evidence if doing so will create a record 21 sufficient for the court to decide the matters before it.”). See also Ullico Cas. Co. v. Abba 22 Shipping Lines, Inc., 891 F.Supp.2d 4, 7 (D.D.C. 2012) (“While the entry of default 23 establishes the Defendant’s liability, the Court is required to make an independent 24 determination of the amount of damages to be awarded, unless the amount of damages is 25 certain. In instances where the amount of damages is not certain, the court may hold a 26 hearing, but is not required to do so as long as there is a basis for determining damages 27 for purposes of the default judgment. In making an independent determination, the court 28 may rely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence.”) (citations and internal 1 || quotation marks omitted); J & U Inc v. Publishers Sols. Int'l, 2013 WL 12155691, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“Plaintiff has fallen far short of what the Ninth Circuit requires in || pursuing a motion for default judgment. ... While Plaintiff seeks to hold its factual support until oral argument, it is entirely likely that, should this motion come before the 5 || Court again, it will be decided without a hearing.”’). 6 “(Default judgments are ordinarily disfavored,” as “[c]ases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Fitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. A party 8 || seeking default judgment bears the burden of demonstrating to the Court that the 9|| complaint is sufficient on its face and that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting 10|| default judgment. Plaintiff also bears the burden of demonstrating entitlement to the 11 |} sought amount of damages. Assafv. Carp, 2018 WL 6051514, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (“On || a motion for default judgment, Plaintiffs carry the burden of proving up their damages” 13} by providing “detailed affidavits and supporting exhibits.”). Plaintiff has made no effort 14]| to do so here. If and when Plaintiff obtains entry of default and again files a motion for 15 || default judgment, that motion should set forth the elements of each asserted claim, || demonstrate how the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to satisfy each element, || set forth the amount of damages sought from each defaulting defendant, and submit 18 || evidence supporting the amount of damages sought. 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 18) is denied. 22 Dated this 11th day of July, 2025. 23 24 Lm ae” 25 i _o——— Dominic W. Lanza 26 United States District Judge 27 28

_3-