BUTLER v. UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, CV 17-50-BLG-SPW-TJC. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Montana
Number: infdco20170823a65
Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2017
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT TIMOTHY J. CAVAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs Charles and Chloe Butler ("Plaintiffs") have filed a Motion for Entry Default Judgment against Defendant National Brokers of America, Inc. ("NBOA"). (Doc. 25.) Defendants Unified Life Insurance Company and Allied National, Inc. filed an opposition. (Doc. 26.) Upon review of the opposition, Plaintiffs indicate they wish to withdraw their motion. (Doc. 30.) Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT TIMOTHY J. CAVAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs Charles and Chloe Butler ("Plaintiffs") have filed a Motion for Entry Default Judgment against Defendant National Brokers of America, Inc. ("NBOA"). (Doc. 25.) Defendants Unified Life Insurance Company and Allied National, Inc. filed an opposition. (Doc. 26.) Upon review of the opposition, Plaintiffs indicate they wish to withdraw their motion. (Doc. 30.) Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY O..
More
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
TIMOTHY J. CAVAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs Charles and Chloe Butler ("Plaintiffs") have filed a Motion for Entry Default Judgment against Defendant National Brokers of America, Inc. ("NBOA"). (Doc. 25.) Defendants Unified Life Insurance Company and Allied National, Inc. filed an opposition. (Doc. 26.) Upon review of the opposition, Plaintiffs indicate they wish to withdraw their motion. (Doc. 30.) Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to withdraw the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.
Although the motion has been withdrawn, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' single-page motion failed to address the applicable legal standards, and was devoid of any argument or analysis. "A defendant's default does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment." Pepsico, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Therefore, Plaintiffs are advised that should they renew the motion for entry of default judgement in the future, the motion must address each of the factors set forth in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), with regard to each claim against NBOA, the Court's jurisdiction over this case and NBOA, and whether entry of default should be delayed under Rule 54(b). The motion must also comply with Local Rules 7.1(c)(1) and 7.1(d)(1)(A).
IT IS ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
