ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Relief [40]

RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff The American Automobile Association, Inc. ("Plaintiff") has filed a Motion for Default Judgment and Relief against Defendant Tamir Zaid ("Defendant") [40]. The Court, having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this Motion and having considered all arguments presented to the Court, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Relief is hereby GRANTED. The Court finds that Plaintiff has met all local procedural requirements for default judgment. First, default was entered by the Clerk of the Court as to Defendant [39]. Second, default was entered to the Complaint filed in this proceeding. Third, as declared by Plaintiff "on information and belief," the potential claimant is neither a minor nor an incompetent person. O'Connor declaration ¶ 3. Fourth, as declared by Plaintiff, it is indeterminable whether Defendant is an active servicemember. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff may, and did, comply with the local rules by submitting an affidavit "stating that the plaintiff is unable to determine whether or not the defendant is in military service." 50 U.S.C. Appx § 521(b)(1)(B). Fifth, service of notice is not required. Written notice of the Motion for Default Judgment must be served on parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). In addition to formal appearances in court, an appearance for the purposes of Rule 55 may be "informal contacts between the parties [where] the party in default has thereby demonstrated a clear purpose to defend the suit." In re Roxford Foods, 12 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Wilson v. Moore & Assocs., 564 F.2d 366, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1977)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Defendant has not formally appeared before this Court, and Defendant indicated his intention not to oppose the Motion for Default Judgment. See Ex. A (Declaration of Sara J. O'Connell ISO Motion for Default Judgment) ¶¶ 7-9 [40-4]. Therefore, notice was not required. Nevertheless, Plaintiff gave proper notice by serving the Motion for Default Judgement on Defendant. See Docket no. 40-3 (certificate of service of Motion for Default Judgement). As such, Plaintiff has complied with the procedural requirements of Local Rule 55-1.

Furthermore, the Court finds that the substantive factors set forth in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) weigh in favor of granting default judgment, because of: a) the possibility of prejudice to Plaintiff; (b) the fact that Plaintiff's case appears to be meritorious and sufficiently pleaded in the Complaint; (c) the fact that AAA only seeks the transfer of the AAA-LOCKSMITHS.COM domain name to AAA, see Pepsico, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1176-77 (holding that the fourth Eitel factor favors granting default judgment when the only relief sought is injunctive relief); (d) the lack of dispute as to genuine fact; (e) and the lack of apparent excusable neglect by Defendant in failing to appear.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:

Default judgment shall be entered against Defendant. As for the relief requested, the Court directs Defendant to relinquish all rights, title, and interest, in the domain name AAA-LOCKSMITHS.COM, and to transfer the domain name to Plaintiff. To facilitate this transfer, it is further ordered that registry of the domain names change the registrar of record to a registrar of Plaintiffs' choosing. It is further ordered that the new registrar of record change the registrant to Plaintiff or its authorized representative. See Verizon California Inc. v. OnlineNIC Inc., No. C 08-2832 JF (RS), 2008 WL 5352022, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2008).

IT IS SO ORDERED.