United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
this Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment
(ECF No. 456) to void Mr. Francis Brun's and Ms. Aileen
Brun's (the Defendants') leasehold interest in Public
Allotment No. CC-234 (the Property). The Plaintiff's
served the Defendants on May 25, 2015 (ECF Nos. 222, 223) to
which the Defendants have not responded. On January 3, 2017,
the Clerk of the Court entered Default against the Defendants
(ECF No. 428). Presently, the Plaintiff moves this Court to
enter Default Judgment in his favor under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). This Court grants the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, there is a two-step
process in order to acquire a default judgment. First, the
Plaintiff must have the clerk of the court enter default.
Second, the Plaintiff must petition the Court for default
judgment, when the nonmoving party has appeared or the
default judgment request is not for a certain sum of money.
In the petition, the Plaintiff must set forth the following
(1) when and against which party, the default was entered;
(2) the identification of the pleading to which default was
(3) whether the defaulting party is an infant or incompetent
person, and if so, whether that person is adequately
(4) that notice of the application has been served on the
defaulting party, if [the nonmoving party has either formally
appeared or shown a clear purpose to defend the suit].
PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d
1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
the Plaintiff meets the five requirements, “[t]he
decision to enter a default judgment is a matter left to the
sound discretion of the court.” Granite State Ins.
Co. v. CME Prof'l Servs. LLC, No.
CV-18-02488-PHX-JGZ, 2019 WL 399923, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 31,
2019) (citing Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d
1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980)). The Ninth Circuit has provided
the district courts with a framework with which to determine
the appropriateness of granting default judgment in Eitel
v. McCool. 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court of
Appeals has listed seven factors to consider:
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff;
(2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim;
(3) the sufficiency of the complaint;
(4) the sum of money at stake in the ...