Szabo v. Southwest Endocrinology Associates PLLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 27, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01896
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Maria Szabo, No. CV-20-01896-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Southwest Endocrinology Associates PLLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff filed a one-page motion for default judgment that merely states that 16 “[b]ecause a sum certain is not requested, Plaintiff requests that the Court set a hearing 17 regarding this motion, at which Plaintiff may present evidence of the sum of damages.” 18 (Doc. 15.) 19 Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary Order, “[e]very motion or stipulation, however 20 mundane, must cite the rule(s) and/or law(s) that permit the Court to grant the requested 21 relief. (Doc. 5 at 2.) See also LRCiv 7.2(b) (the moving party must “set[] forth the 22 points and authorities relied upon in support of the motion”). Moreover, to prevail on a 23 motion, the moving party must apply the law to the facts of the case. A motion for 24 default judgment—far from being a mundane procedural motion (such as a motion to 25 extend a deadline)—is a case-dispositive motion which requires the Court to undertake an 26 in-depth analysis. See, e.g., Rosen v. Fasttrak Foods LLC, 2021 WL 2981590 (D. Ariz. 27 2021); Trident Inv. Partners Inc. v. Evans, 2021 WL 75826 (D. Ariz. 2021). The 28 “decision whether to enter a default judgment is a discretionary one,” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 1 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980), and the Court considers various factors when 2 deciding whether default judgment is appropriate: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the 3 plaintiff, (2) the merits of the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount 4 of money at stake, (5) the possibility of factual disputes, (6) whether the default was due 5 to excusable neglect, and (7) the policy favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. 6 McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). 7 Thus, motions for default judgment—at least the successful ones—are typically 8 fully developed, such that the Court has, from the papers, all that is necessary to grant or 9 deny relief, with or without a hearing. 2 Gensler, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rules 10 and Commentary, Rule 55, at 119 (2018) (“A live evidentiary hearing [on damages] is 11 not always required. Rather, the hearing requirement can be satisfied by the submission 12 of affidavits or other proper documentary evidence if doing so will create a record 13 sufficient for the court to decide the matters before it.”). See also Ullico Cas. Co. v. Abba 14 Shipping Lines, Inc., 891 F.Supp.2d 4, 7 (D.D.C. 2012) (“While the entry of default 15 establishes the Defendant’s liability, the Court is required to make an independent 16 determination of the amount of damages to be awarded, unless the amount of damages is 17 certain. In instances where the amount of damages is not certain, the court may hold a 18 hearing, but is not required to do so as long as there is a basis for determining damages 19 for purposes of the default judgment. In making an independent determination, the court 20 may rely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence.”) (citations and internal 21 quotation marks omitted); I & U Inc v. Publishers Sols. Int’l, 2013 WL 12155691, *2 22 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“Plaintiff has fallen far short of what the Ninth Circuit requires in 23 pursuing a motion for default judgment. . . . While Plaintiff seeks to hold its factual 24 support until oral argument, it is entirely likely that, should this motion come before the 25 Court again, it will be decided without a hearing.”). 26 “[D]efault judgments are ordinarily disfavored,” as “[c]ases should be decided 27 upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. A party 28 seeking default judgment bears the burden of demonstrating to the Court that the || complaint is sufficient on its face and that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting 2|| default judgment. Plaintiff also bears the burden of demonstrating entitlement to the || sought amount of damages. Assaf v. Carp, 2018 WL 6051514, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (“On a motion for default judgment, Plaintiffs carry the burden of proving up their damages” || by providing “detailed affidavits and supporting exhibits.”). Plaintiff has made no effort || todo so here. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 15) is denied || without prejudice. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file a renewed motion for default 11 |} judgment within 21 days of the date of this order. 12 Dated this 27th day of July, 2021. 13 14 Lm ee” 15 f t _o——— Dominic W, Lanza 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-