Philip H. Stengel v. First National Bank of Omaha

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05903
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 PHILIP H. STENGEL, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05903-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 10) 13 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, 14 Defendant. 15

16 Before the Court is Plaintiff Philip Stengel’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 17 10.) As explained below, the record fails to demonstrate that Defendant First National Bank of 18 Omaha (“FNBO”) was properly served with a copy of the summons and complaint. Therefore, 19 this motion is DENIED. 20 This dispute arises out of Plaintiff’s credit card accounts with FNBO. (Dkt. No. 3 at 1– 21 2.) Plaintiff alleges that on September 5, 2025, FNBO decreased Plaintiff’s primary card limit 22 from $12,800 to $2,900 without stating a specific reason. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff filed an arbitration 23 demand with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on September 22, 2025. (Id.) On 24 1 October 3, 2025, after FNBO was served with the arbitration demand, FNBO decreased 2 Plaintiff’s second card limit from $3,800 to $1,500, spiking Plaintiff’s utilization of the card to 3 approximately 93 percent. (Id.) On October 5, 2025, AAA issued a letter “declining to 4 administer the arbitration because FNBO was not compliant with AAA consumer-clause

5 requirements.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that FNBO has furnished and continues to furnish credit- 6 limit data that, “due to its own retaliatory cuts, is inaccurate or misleading as to Plaintiff’s credit 7 risk.” (Id.) 8 Plaintiff filed suit against FNBO on October 7, 2025. (Dkt. No. 3.) The Clerk of Court 9 issued a summons (Dkt. No. 4) and proof of service was filed on October 10, 2025, indicating 10 service was accomplished on October 9, 2025. (Dkt. No. 6). On October 31, 2025, Plaintiff 11 moved for default. (Dkt. No. 7.) The Clerk entered default against Defendant on the same day. 12 (Dkt. No. 9.) 13 As a preliminary step, the Court must determine whether it has both subject matter and 14 personal jurisdiction over the parties. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When

15 entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, a district 16 court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the 17 parties.”). “Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the 18 procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. 19 Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). Under Rule 4(h)(1), service upon a domestic 20 corporation may be effected pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, 21 or by serving an officer, a managing or general agent, or any agent authorized by appointment or 22 by law to receive service of process. 23

24 1 Here, the Clerk of Court issued a summons for Defendant’s registered agent, CT 2 Corporation System, located at 711 Capitol Way South, Suite 204, Olympia, Washington 98501. 3 (Dkt. No. 4 at 1.). The proof of service of the summons and complaint reflects that the summons 4 was served on October 9, 2025 on Devin Welker, operations specialist at CT Corporation System

5 located at 5601 S. 59th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska. (Dkt. No. 6 at 2, 4.) A second proof of 6 service of the summons and complaint reflects that the summons was served on October 9, 2025 7 on Zach Belitz, paralegal at First National Bank of Omaha 1620 Dodge St., Omaha, Nebraska. 8 (Dkt. No. 6 at 3.) Plaintiff fails to plead facts as to why CT Corporation System in Washington 9 can accept service on behalf of FNBO. Furthermore, even if in fact the company could accept 10 service, Plaintiff provides no information why CT Corporation System’s Nebraska address as 11 opposed to its Washington address is the proper place to provide notice to FNBO of this lawsuit. 12 Additionally, Plaintiff fails to show how service to a paralegal at FNBO’s mailing address 13 comports with Washington law for service of an entity. 14 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment also does not analyze the controlling standards for

15 this motion set out in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). (See Dkt. No. 10 16 at 2.) Under Eitel, before granting a motion for default judgment, the Court must consider: (1) 17 possible prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the plaintiff's claim; (3) the sufficiency of the 18 complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake; (5) the possibility of a factual dispute; (6) whether the 19 default was potentially due to excusable neglect; and (7) the general policy that cases be decided 20 on the merits. See id. In considering these factors, “the factual allegations of the complaint, 21 except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. 22 Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). Here, Plaintiff seeks $25,290 in damages but has not 23

24 1 provided evidence to explain or justify that amount. Hence, beyond the lack of proper service, 2 the Eitel factors support a denial of Plaintiff’s motion. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED. Plaintiff 4 may file a new motion for default judgment that addresses the deficiencies identified in this

5 Order no later than December 5, 2025.1 Failure to comply will result in the Court setting aside 6 the entry of default and possibly dismissing the case without prejudice. 7 Dated this 18th day of November, 2025. 8 A 9 David G. Estudillo 10 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 The Court notes that counsel for Defendant filed a notice of appearance on November 17, 2025. 23 (Dkt. No. 12.) It might be beneficial for the Parties to contact each other and discuss the status of this matter. 24