Tappe v. Instrulink LLC et al

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
Keith Tappe,
Plaintiff,
v.
Instrulink LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-03122-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Keith Tappe filed this suit to recover unpaid wages. (Doc. 1.) Defendants
were served but did not appear and their defaults were entered. (Docs. 6-8, 10.) Plaintiff
now seeks default judgment. (Doc. 12.)
The court must consider seven factors when deciding whether to enter default
judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). The seven factors are:
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of 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.
Id. These factors establish default judgment is appropriate.
1. Possibility of Prejudice
The first factor regarding the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff supports entry of
default judgment because if “default judgment is not granted, plaintiff[] will likely be
without other recourse for recovery.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d
Case 2:25-cv-03122-KML Document 13 Filed 04/21/26 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
1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
2. Merits of the Claims and Sufficiency of the Complaint
The second and third factors require assessing the merits of plaintiff’s claims and
the sufficiency of his complaint. These factors “are often analyzed together and require
courts to consider whether a plaintiff has state[d] a claim on which [he] may recover.”
Vietnam Reform Party v. Viet Tan - Vietnam Reform Party, 416 F. Supp. 3d 948, 962 (N.D.
Cal. 2019).
Defendant Instrulink LLC is an “industrial plumbing company.” (Doc. 1 at 3.)
Defendants William Robert Doenges and Judith Ann Doenges are the owners of Instrulink.
(Doc. 1 at 4.) From the week of June 23, 2025, to July 18, 2025, plaintiff worked for
defendants “performing manual labor related to industrial plumbing.” (Doc. 1 at 6-7.) For
his final workweek, defendants agreed to compensate plaintiff $325 per day. (Doc. 1 at 7.)
That week plaintiff worked three shifts of approximately 12 hours. (Doc. 12-1 at 3.) Based
on his rate of pay, plaintiff should have been paid $975.00. Because defendants did not pay
plaintiff anything for his final workweek (Doc. 1 at 7), plaintiff alleges claims under federal
and state law for unpaid wages.
The complaint contains sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, to state
claims under federal and state law. The second and third default judgment factors support
entry of default judgment.
3. Amount in Controversy
The fourth default judgment factor “requires that the court assess whether the
recovery sought is proportional to the harm caused by defendant’s conduct.” Landstar
Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enterprises, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 916, 921 (C.D. Cal. 2010). When
a large sum is at stake, this factor may weigh against default judgment. Curtis v.
Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1212 (W.D. Wash. 2014).
Plaintiff seeks to recover $2,925, representing “fully trebled, unpaid regular wage
damages.” (Doc. 12-1 at 4.) That amount is calculated from the wages owed to plaintiff
and the additions permitted by law. The amount therefore is proportional to the harm
Case 2:25-cv-03122-KML Document 13 Filed 04/21/26 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
caused by defendants’ conduct and this factor supports entry of default judgment
4. Dispute Over Material Facts
The fifth factor is whether there are any disputes over material facts. Defendants’
decision not to respond to the complaint means there are no such disputes. This factor
supports entry of default judgment.
5. Excusable Neglect
Defendants were served but chose not to participate. There is no indication
defendants’ behavior is due to excusable neglect. See Shanghai Automation Instrument Co.
v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (defendants’ failure to respond to
complaint could not “be attributable to excusable neglect” because “[a]ll were properly
served with the Complaint, the notice of entry of default, as well as the papers in support
of the instant motion.”). This factor supports entry of default judgment.
6. Policy Favoring Decisions on the Merits
The seventh factor recognizes a preference for resolving matters on their merits.
This factor, as always, weighs against entry of default judgment. “However, the mere
existence of Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b) indicates that this preference, standing alone, is not
dispositive.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177 (simplified).
7. Default Judgment is Merited
Viewed together, the seven factors establish default judgment is appropriate. The
final issue is the appropriate amount of damages.
8. Damages
It is plaintiff’s burden to prove the amount of his damages. Blumenthal Distrib., Inc.
v. Comoch Inc., 652 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2023). For purposes of Arizona’s
minimum wage law, plaintiff is owed $529.20 ($14.70 multiplied by 36 hours).1 Arizona
law provides that plaintiff’s $529.20 in unpaid minimum wages should be trebled to
$1,587.60. A.R.S. § 23-364(G). Arizona law separately provides that plaintiff’s unpaid
wages of $975 should be trebled to $2,925. A.R.S. § 23-355(A).
1 The federal minimum wage is lower so it can be ignored.
Case 2:25-cv-03122-KML Document 13 Filed 04/21/26 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
The Arizona Wage Act (“AWA”), A.R.S. § 23-350(3), defines “employer” “much
more narrowly” than the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”). Rosen v. Fasttrak
Foods LLC, No. CV-19-05292-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 2981590, at *5 (D. Ariz. July 15,
2021). The AWA’s more narrow definition of “employer” does not “authorize individual
liability against the owners, officers, and directors of a corporate employer in a case where
the claim is for the employer’s wholesale failure to pay wages.” Id. This means plaintiff’s
damages under the AWA can be assessed only against the limited liability companies. By
contrast, plaintiff’s damages under the AMWA can be assessed against all defendants. The
total damages are apportioned as follows:
• Instrulink LLC is liable for $2,925; and
• Instrulink LLC, William Robert Doenges, and Judith Ann Doenges are
jointly and severally liable for $1,587.60.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. The
Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of $2,925 against defendant Instrulink LLC. That
judgment shall also reflect $1,587.60 of the $2,925 is entered against Instrulink LLC,
William Robert Doenges, and Judith Ann Doenges jointly and severally. The Clerk of
Court shall close this case.
Dated this 21st day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03122-KML Document 13 Filed 04/21/26 Page 4 of 4