1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * * 4

5 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,N.A. Case No.: 2:17-cv-00334-RFB-NJK 6 Plaintiff, ORD E R 7 v. 8 SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC.,

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 55. For the following reasons, the Court grants this motion. 14 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 15 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed its complaint against Defendants on February 2, 2017. 16 ECF No. 1. On July 3, 2017, SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) answered and asserted cross- 17 claims against Lizzy Holbrook. ECF No. 21. Holbrook was served with SFR’s Answer with cross- 18 claims on September 29, 2017. ECF No. 36. On January 10, 2019, this Court entered a stipulation 19 of dismissal between JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, and Trail Ridge 20 Community Association with prejudice; the case remained opened as to SFR’s pending cross- 21 claims against Holbrook. ECF No. 50. On June 27, 2019, SFR filed a Motion for Entry of Clerk’s 22 Default as to Lizzy Holbrook and it was entered on June 28, 2019. ECF Nos. 52, 53. On May 6, 23 2020, SFR filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Holbrook and there was no opposition 24 filed. ECF Nos. 55,56. 25 III. LEGAL STANDARD 26 The granting of a default judgment is a two-step process directed by Rule 55 of the Federal 27 Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Eitel v. McCool,

(9th Cir. 1986). 1 The first step is an entry of clerk's default based on a showing, by affidavit or otherwise, that the 2 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 4 discretion of the Court. Aldabe v. Aldabe,

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

, 13 854 (9th Cir. 2007). Additionally, the Court does not accept factual allegations relating to the 14 amount of damages as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp.,

, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). Default 15 establishes a party's liability, but not the amount of damages claimed in the pleading. Id. 16 IV. DISCUSSION 17 In considering the seven Eitel factors, the Court finds default judgment against Lizzy 18 Holbrook is warranted. The first and sixth factors favor granting default judgment because the 19 Cross-Defendant failed to defend—or appear at all in this matter—since being served with the 20 summons and SFR’s Answer. Holbrook’s failure to appear for the past four years prejudices SFR 21 by preventing it from determining injunctive relief against Holbrook. Further, Holbrook’s failure 22 to appear for a substantial period of time demonstrates the lack of excusable neglect. And while 23 the seventh factor generally counsels against the granting of default judgment, Holbrook’s failure 24 to appear prevents the Court from determining the cross-claims on its merits. 25 The second and third factors also favor a grant of default judgment. SFR seeks quiet title 26 and injunctive relief against Holbrook’s. There are sufficient exhibits attached to this instant 27 motion demonstrating SFR is entitled to the relief requested. Thus, SFR has demonstrated its 1 Finally, there is no money at stake to counsel against the grant of default judgment. Thus, 2 || the Court finds the Eitel factors favor the grant of default judgment against Cross-Defendant. 3 || V. CONCLUSION 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion 5 || for Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED. 6 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 7 DATED: . March 30, 2021 AS 9 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28