American Family Home Insurance Company v. Beralt LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
American Family Home Insurance Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
Beralt LLC,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-02832-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Plaintiff American Family Home Insurance Company (“American”) initiated this
action on August 6, 2025, and served the Complaint upon Defendant Beralt LLC (“Beralt”)
on September 4, 2025, (Doc. 10). Beralt did not respond to the Complaint. Pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(a), on October 9, 2025, the Clerk’s Office entered
default against Beralt, (Doc. 14). American filed a motion for default judgment as to Beralt
on October 13, 2025. (Doc. 15.) Beralt has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion and
the time to do so has passed. For the reasons set forth below, default judgment is not
appropriate, and the motion will be denied without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
This case is about either a 1962 Chevrolet Corvette or a tractor. The Complaint
alleges that on September 17, 2023, Beralt, “a licensed motor carrier engaged
in . . . carriage of cargo for hire,” picked up a 1962 Chevrolet Corvette in Wichita Falls,
Texas for delivery to Jacques Gagner in Phoenix, Arizona. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 6.) The next day,
“Gagner discovered significant damage” to the corvette. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The Complaint also
Case 2:25-cv-02832-SHD Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
alleges that Beralt transported a “tractor from Wichita Falls, Texas to Phoenix, Arizona,”
and that it was Beralt’s duty “to ensure that the farm tractor did not sustain any damage
during transport.” (Id. at ¶¶ 14–15.) Although the Complaint references attached exhibits,
including shipping documents that might confirm whether Beralt transported a corvette
and/or a tractor, no exhibits were attached to the Complaint. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 9.)
American’s motion for default judgment does not clarify the issue, referring only to
the damaged “cargo” and “property.” (See Doc. 15.) However, in conjunction with its
application for entry of default, (Doc. 12), American filed an affidavit and attached receipts
detailing work performed on a burgundy 1962 Chevrolet Corvette, (Doc. 13-2). The Court
thus assumes that the property at issue is a corvette, not a tractor.
The Complaint alleges that the corvette was damaged during its transport to
Phoenix, but it does not provide any facts about the condition of the corvette when Beralt
received it in Texas. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 16.) Ultimately, Gagner spent $32,221.07 to repair the
damaged corvette, and he submitted a claim for the same to American. (Id. at ¶ 18.)
American paid the claim, less a $2,500 deductible. (See id. at ¶ 11.)
On August 6, 2025, American, as Gagner’s subrogee, filed this action bringing three
claims against Beralt: (1) violation of the Carmack Amendment, (2) breach of bailment
obligations, and (3) negligence. (Id. at 3–5.) Beralt was served but failed to answer. (Doc.
10.) American now seeks default judgment in the amount of $32,221.07. (Doc. 15 at 1.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Court may enter default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b) upon the entry of
default by the Clerk of Court. Before assessing the merits of a default judgment, district
courts must confirm that they have jurisdiction over the case and the parties. Capitol
Specialty Ins. Co. v. Chaldean LLC, 2022 WL 2953062, at *1 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2022). “The
district court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe
v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1098 (9th Cir. 1980)). Before granting default judgment, courts
must consider the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the
merits of the claim, (3) the sufficiency of the Complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake,
Case 2:25-cv-02832-SHD Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(5) the possibility of factual disputes, (6) whether default is due to excusable neglect, and
(7) the policy favoring decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–
72 (9th Cir. 1986).
III. DISCUSSION
American’s motion for default judgment is two pages long, has no argument, legal
analysis, or citation to legal authority. (See generally, Doc. 15.) American does not address
the Court’s jurisdiction or any of the Eitel factors. It makes no argument as to the
sufficiency of the Complaint’s allegations, which, given the Complaint’s potential errors
and omissions regarding the nature of the cargo, is concerning. Nor does American argue
that its claims are meritorious or its damages proportional to the harm caused. American
does not identify the law governing its Carmack Amendment, breach of bailment, and
negligence claims, or make any attempt to argue that the Court should grant relief despite
the “general rule that default judgments are ordinarily disfavored” because “[c]ases should
be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472;
NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016).
In sum, American’s motion is deficient and falls far short of meeting its “burden of
demonstrating . . . that the complaint is sufficient on its face and that the Eitel factors weigh
in favor of granting default judgment.” Szabo v. Southwest Endocrinology Ass. PLLC,
2021 WL 3411084, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2021) (denying default judgment because plaintiff
“made no effort” to meet its burden); see also Scribner v. Pollack & Rosen, P.A., 2025 WL
3633545, at *3–4 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (denying default judgment when the plaintiff
“provide[d] no legal analysis, no argument, and no legal authority in the motion” and
collecting similar cases). The motion also violates the Local Rules, which require that
every motion “set[] forth the points and authorities relied upon in support of the motion.”
LRCiv 7.2(b).
Accordingly,
///
///
Case 2:25-cv-02832-SHD Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED that American’s motion for default judgment, (Doc. 15) is denied
without prejudice.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02832-SHD Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 4