Opinion
2:21-cv-00606-RSM
09-16-2021
ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Illinois corporation, Plaintiff, v. SEATTLE LAKES CRUISES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Defendant.
CAREY M.E. GEPHART, NATHAN J. BEARD, LEGROS BUCHANAN & PAUL Attorneys for Plaintiff Argonaut Insurance Company
CAREY M.E. GEPHART, NATHAN J. BEARD, LEGROS BUCHANAN & PAUL Attorneys for Plaintiff Argonaut Insurance Company
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Argonaut Insurance Company's (“Argonaut”) motion for default judgment. The Court has considered the following:
. Argonaut's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (Dkt. #1);
. The Argonaut policies, renewal certificates, and endorsements at issue, specifically Argonaut Policy Nos. KDH-1001-W16, KDH-1001-W17, KDH-1001-W18, and KDH-1001-W19. See Dkt. # 1-3, Dkt. # 1-4, Dkt. # 1-5, Dkt. # 1-6, Dkt. # 1-7, Dkt. # 1-8, Dkt. # 1-9, Dkt. # 1-10, and Dkt. # 1-11;
. The Complaints filed by West Star Yacht, LLC (“West Star Yacht”) against Seattle Lakes Cruises, LLC (“Seattle Lakes Cruises”) in West Star Yacht, LLC v. Seattle Lakes Cruises, LLC See Dkt. # 1-1, Dkt. # 1-2; West Star Yacht, LLC v. Seattle Lakes Cruises, LLC, W.D. Wash. No. 2:21-cv-00223-RSM, at Dkt. # 64;
. Argonaut's Motion for Default Judgment, and the pleadings and papers on file with the court referenced therein; and
. The applicable law.
Argonaut's Motion for Default Judgment is unopposed. See Dkt. Being fully advised, the Court GRANTS Argonaut's motion.
Obtaining a default judgment is a two-step process. First, if a party fails to appear, the clerk must enter that party's default. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). In this case, the clerk already entered Seattle Lakes Cruises' default. Dkt. # 10. Second, upon a party's request or motion, the court may grant default judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2); see Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Default judgment is appropriate if the well pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are sufficient to establish a plaintiffs entitlement to a judgment under the applicable law. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Rueger, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101745, *5, 2020 WL 3077148 (W.D. Wash. 2020). To determine the plaintiffs entitlement to judgment, "[t]he court must accept all well-pled allegations of the complaint as established fact, except allegations related to the amount of damages." UN4 Prods., Inc. v. Primozich, 372 F.Supp.3d 1129, 1133 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (citing TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)). If the complaint is sufficient, the court decides whether to grant default judgment by considering the seven factors set forth in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Rueger, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101745, *6.
The facts alleged in Argonaut's Complaint establish Argonaut's entitlement to a declaratory judgment in its favor; Argonaut's Complaint establishes Argonaut Policy Nos. KDH-1001-W16, KDH-1001-W17, KDH-1001-W18, and KDH-1001-W19 do not obligate Argonaut to defend or indemnify Seattle Lakes Cruises in the lawsuit filed against Seattle Lakes Cruises by West Star Yacht (currently pending as West Star Yacht, LLC v. Seattle Lakes Cruises, LLC, W.D. Wash. No. 2:21-cv-00223-RSM). Additionally, the majority of the Eitel factors weigh in favor of a default judgment in Argonaut's favor. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Argonaut's motion for default judgment against Seattle Lakes Cruises. The Court hereby enters a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT that Argonaut does not owe Seattle Lakes Cruises defense or indemnity for the claims made against Seattle Lakes Cruises by West Star Yacht in the Underlying Action under Argonaut Policy Nos. KDH-1001-W16, KDH-1001-W17, KDH-1001-W18, and KDH-1001-W19.
The Eitel factors are (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the 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.