1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * * 4

5 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No.: 2:16-cv-01239-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, ORD E R 7 v. 8 MESA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,

9 Defendants. 10 11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 Before the Court is Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) Motion for Default 13 Judgment. ECF No. 67. For the following reasons, the Court grants this motion. 14 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 15 The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) filed its complaint against SFR, Alessi & 16 Koenig, LLC, Mesa Homeowners Association, and Nevada Association Services, Inc. on June 3, 17 2016. ECF No. 1. On March 7, 2019, SFR answered and asserted crossclaims against Charles A. 18 Mann and counter-claims against BNYM. ECF No. 46. On April 19, 2019, Mann was served with 19 SFR’s crossclaims. ECF No. 51. On July 9, 2019 SFR filed a Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default 20 as to Charles A. Mann and it was entered on July 10, 2019. ECF Nos. 52, 53. SFR filed a Motion 21 for Default Judgment against Charles A. Mann on July 12, 2019; however, this case was stayed 22 pending the result of a Nevada Supreme Court decision; therefore, all pending motions were denied 23 without prejudice. ECF Nos. 54, 65. On May 21, 2020, SFR filed another Motion for Default 24 Judgment against Charles A. Mann and no opposition was filed. ECF Nos. 67, 70. On December 25 7, 2020, parties stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice which was granted on December 8, 26 2020. ECF Nos. 77, 78. 27 III. LEGAL STANDARD 1 Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Eitel v. McCool,

(9th Cir. 1986). 2 The first step is an entry of clerk's default based on a showing, by affidavit or otherwise, that the 3 party against whom the judgment is sought “has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ.

(a). The second step is default judgment under Rule 55(b), a decision which lies within the 5 discretion of the Court. Aldabe v. Aldabe,

(9th Cir. 1980). Factors which a 6 court, in its discretion, may consider in deciding whether to grant a default judgment include: (1) 7 the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of the substantive claims, (3) the 8 sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, (5) the possibility of a dispute of 9 material fact, (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the Federal Rules’ 10 strong policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. 11 If an entry of default is made, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations in the 12 complaint as true; however, conclusions of law and allegations of fact that are not well-pleaded 13 will not be deemed admitted by the defaulted party. DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh,

, 14 854 (9th Cir. 2007). Additionally, the Court does not accept factual allegations relating to the 15 amount of damages as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp.,

, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). Default 16 establishes a party's liability, but not the amount of damages claimed in the pleading. Id. 17 IV. DISCUSSION 18 In considering the seven Eitel factors, the Court finds default judgment against Charles A. 19 Mann is warranted. The first and sixth factors favor granting default judgment because the Cross- 20 Defendant failed to defend—or appear at all in this matter—since being served with the summons 21 and the SFR’s Answer to the Complaint. Mann’s failure to appear for the past two years prejudices 22 SFR by preventing it from determining injunctive relief against Mann. Further, Mann’s failure to 23 appear for a substantial period of time demonstrates the lack of excusable neglect. And while the 24 seventh factor generally counsels against the granting of default judgment, Mann’s failure to 25 appear prevents the Court from determining the cross-claims on its merits. 26 The second and third factors also favor a grant of default judgment. SFR seeks quiet title 27 and injunctive relief against Mann. There are sufficient exhibits attached to this instant motion 1 |] meritorious. 2 Finally, there is no money at stake to counsel against the grant of default judgment. Thus, 3 || the Court finds the Eitel factors favor the grant of default judgment against Cross-Defendant. V. CONCLUSION 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion 6 || for Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 67) is GRANTED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the County Recorder for Clark County, Nevada 1 8 || directed to expunge the notice of lis pendens recorded by Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC 9 || onthe property located at 6947 Dancing Cloud Avenue, Henderson, NV 89011; APN 161-35-213- 10 |) 111. 11 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 12 13 DATED: February 25, 2021. aio A<-

15 RICHARQE, BDULWARE, II 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28