First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Swick
This text of First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Swick (First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Swick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 FIRST AMERICAN PROPERTY & CASE NO. C24-5792 BHS 8 CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 SHANNON SWICK, et al., 12 Defendants. 13
THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff First American Property & 14 Casualty Insurance Company’s motion for default judgment, Dkt. 11. The case involves 15 First American’s claim for a declaratory judgment that its insurance policy does not 16 provide coverage for defendant Barbara Waters’1 underlying tort claim against 17 defendants Shannon Swick, Michael Swick, and Swick & Sons Enterprises, Inc. Dkt. 1. 18 In the underlying lawsuit, Waters alleged that the Swicks’ Rottweiler bit her while she 19 was delivering a package for the U.S. Postal Service. Dkt. 1. First American’s complaint 20 21 1 Waters conceded that her claim was not covered by First American’s policy, and she 22 was dismissed from this action with prejudice. Dkts. 7 and 10. 1 alleges, and its motion seeks a determination, that its policy does not cover dog bites 2 inflicted by Rottweilers.
3 First American has demonstrated that all defendants have been served, and that 4 none have appeared, answered, or otherwise defended this action. Dkt. 11 at 2. It also 5 contends and demonstrates that the automatic stay imposed by Shannon Swick’s 6 bankruptcy has been lifted. Dkt. 12-1. First American seeks both entry of default under 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and a default judgment on its “no coverage” 8 declaratory judgment claim under Rule 55(b). Dkt. 11.
9 Obtaining a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is a two- 10 step process. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). First, “[w]hen a 11 party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or 12 otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter 13 the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After the clerk enters default, a party must seek
14 entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b). 15 Upon entry of default, the Court takes as true the factual allegations in the non- 16 defaulting party’s complaint, except those related to the amount of damages. Fed. R. Civ. 17 P. 8(b)(6); TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). 18 Nonetheless, “[e]ntry of default does not entitle the non-defaulting party to a default
19 judgment as a matter of right.” Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Caridi, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 20 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (citation omitted). The “general rule [is] that default judgments are 21 ordinarily disfavored. Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably 22 possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472 (citing Peno v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 1 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1985)). Whether to grant a default judgment lies within the district 2 court’s discretion. Id. The Court exercises its discretion under the so-called Eitel factors:
3 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive 4 claims; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; 5 (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due 6 to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. 8 Other than the goal of resolving cases on their merits, none of these considerations
9 weigh against a default judgment in this case. There is no money at stake, there are 10 apparently no disputed facts, and the Complaint asserts and appears to demonstrate that a 11 claim arising out of a Rottweiler bite is expressly excluded from First American’s 12 insurance policy. 13 Accordingly, First American’s motion for default and for default judgment, Dkt.
14 11, is GRANTED. First American has no duty to defend or indemnify defendants 15 Shannon Swick (now Smith), Michael Swick, or Swick & Sons Enterprises from Waters’ 16 tort claims in the underlying action. 17 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19 Dated this 7th day of January, 2025. A 20 21 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 22 United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Swick, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-american-property-casualty-insurance-company-v-swick-wawd-2025.