Kuprin v. DoorDash Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 13, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05496
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MAKSIM KUPRIN, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05496-JHC 8

ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 DOORDASH INC.,

12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Dkt. # 14. 15 The Court has considered the motion, the rest of the file, and the governing law. For the reasons 16 below, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. 17 If a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend, the clerk enters the party’s default. Fed. 18 R. Civ. P. 55(a). Then, upon a plaintiff’s request or motion, the court may grant default 19 judgment for the plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); see Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 20 (9th Cir. 1980). On default judgment motions, “[t]he court must accept all well-pled allegations 21 of the complaint as established fact, except allegations related to the amount of damages.” UN4 22 Prods., Inc. v. Primozich, 372 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1133 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (citing TeleVideo Sys., 23 24 1 Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)). Critical here, courts typically consider || these “Zire/ factors” when evaluating a request for a default judgment: 3 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiffs substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at 4 stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy 5 underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 6 || v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471—72 (9th Cir. 1986). “[D]efault judgment is appropriate 7 || only if the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint suffice to establish a plaintiff's g || entitlement to a judgment under the applicable law.” Dentist Ins. Co. v. Luke St. Marie Valley 9 || Dental Grp., P_L.L.C., No. 2:21-cv-01229-JHC, 2022 WL 1984124 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 6, 2022) 190 || (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 855 (9th Cir. 2007)). 11 Because the motion does not address the Fite/ factors, the Court DENIES it without 12. || prejudice. Plaintiff may file a motion for default judgment that applies the Zite/ factors on or 13 before September 15, 2025. The Court is allowing this much time because Plaintiff is self- 14 __ || Tepresented. 15 Dated this 13th day of August, 2025. 16 CTokh. 4. Chur 17 John H. Chun United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24