In the Matter of the Complaint of William Martz et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WILLIAM AND JANE MARTZ, as
owners of a Nautique vessel for
Limitation of Liability, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANDREW HORAZDOVSKY,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG
ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Before the Court at Docket 75 is Plaintiffs’ Application to Clerk for Entry of
Default and at Docket 77 is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment. Defendant filed
a response in opposition to both motions at Docket 79, to which Plaintiffs replied
at Docket 81.
Plaintiffs sought entry of default against Mr. Horaadovsky, asserting that he
had failed to file any claims in this action. They also sought entry of default against
“all other possible claimants, known and unknown, who have not filed and served
their claims and answers.”1 	In an order dated October 21, 2022, this Court had
ordered Mr. Horazdovsky “to file and serve his claims and answer to Plaintiffs’
complaint 	on 	or 	before 	30 	days 	from 	entry 	of 	this 	order.”2 	Although 	Mr.
1 Docket 75 at 3.
2 Docket 73.
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 84 Filed 01/04/23 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In re Complaint of Martz
Order re Application for Entry of Default and Motion for Default Judgment
Page 2 of 2
Horazdovsky filed an answer to the complaint on November 11, 2022, he did not
file his Notice of Filing Claims until December 21, 2022. 	But Mr. Horazdovsky
maintains that his claim against Plaintiffs was served when he filed his complaint
in the state Superior Court on June 9, 2020—a fact that he asserts was recognized
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in its opinion.3
Plaintiffs reply that Supplemental Rule F(5) requires a filing distinct from an
answer that “specif[ies] the facts upon which the claimant relies in support of the
claim.”4 	It was later that same day that Mr. Horazdovsky filed a Notice of Filing
Claims, to which he appended a copy of the state court complaint from June 2020.
The entry of default or a default judgment against Mr. Horazdovsky and the
claimants related to him is unwarranted in these circumstances. 	“[J]udgment by
default is a drastic step appropriate only in extreme circumstances; a case should,
whenever possible, be decided on the merits.”5
Accordingly, the motions at Docket 75 and Docket 77 are DENIED.
DATED this 4th day of January, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 Docket 79 at 4-5 n.8 (quoting Martz v. Horazdovsky, 33 F. 4th 1157, 1168 (9th Cir. 2022)
(“Horazdovsky’s state court complaint was the first written notice of a claim that the Martzes
received.”)).
4 Docket 81 at 2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. A.M.C. F(5)).
5 United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F. 3d 1085, 1091(9th Cir.
2018) (internal quotes and citation omitted).
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 84 Filed 01/04/23 Page 2 of 2