Order Denying Motion for Default Judgment
[ECF No. 27]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
Little has been done in this two-year-old case. On July 6, 2017, the Clerk of Court notified plaintiff Raymond Smith that "[i]f no action is taken in this case by 8/5/17, the court shall enter an order of dismissal for want of prosecution."
Plaintiff skipped a required step in the default-judgment process. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Eitel v. McCool, Rule 55 requires a "two-step process" consisting of: FIRST asking the Clerk of Court to enter default against the non-answering defendant; and then SECOND, after the clerk has entered default, filing a motion (properly supported by a memorandum of points and authorities
Even if the plaintiff had first asked the clerk to enter default, this motion for default judgment would be denied. Before the court can grant a request for default judgment, the court must evaluate several factors including: "(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 action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits."
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment