First Impression Technologies LLC v. Wireless Guardian Incorporated 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
First Impression Technologies LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Wireless Guardian Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00885-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Plaintiff First Impression Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Final
Judgment against Defendants Wireless Guardian, Inc. and Southeastern Wireless, LLC
(Doc. 59). In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), the Clerk entered
default against Defendants Wireless Guardian, Inc. and Southeastern Wireless, LLC
(collectively, “Defendants”) on November 3, 2025. (See Doc. 51). Plaintiff now requests
that the Court enter “Final Judgment of Default and award uncontested damages” against
Defendants pursuant to Rules 54(b) and 55(b)(2). (Doc. 59 at 1).
As default has been properly entered under Rule 55(a), the Court has discretion to
grant default judgment against Defendant pursuant to Rule 55(b). See Aldabe v. Aldabe,
616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986).
However, in deciding whether to grant default judgment, the Court should consider: (1) the
possibility of prejudice to Plaintiff, (2) the merits of the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the
complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, if any, (5) the possibility of a dispute
concerning material facts, (6) whether default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the
Case 2:25-cv-00885-DJH Document 60 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
policy favoring a decision on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th
Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff has failed to address any of the foregoing factors. Because Plaintiff has not
addressed the Eitel factors, the instant motion will be denied. Plaintiff will be afforded an
opportunity to refile the request. The new motion must fully address each Eitel factor1 in
addition to providing the grounds and evidence supporting any calculation of damages.
Plaintiff is further advised that any portion of an exhibit referenced in its motion
must be identified with a pincite. The Court will not search through multiple pages of
exhibits to find the evidence corroborating Plaintiff’s claim, and general references to
multiple-page exhibits are not sufficient to support a specific claim. Further, if Plaintiff
files a renewed motion, the supporting documents for its attorneys’ fees request should not
be included. The Court’s order will reflect whether a subsequent attorney fees motion may
be filed. Finally, Plaintiff should review the Local Rules of Procedure and must comply
with all the requirements of pleadings stated therein, including the requirement to submit
a proposed order when requesting specific relief. See LRCiv. 7.1(b)(2).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment against Defendants
Wireless Guardian, Inc. and Southeastern Wireless, LLC (Doc. 59) is DENIED without
prejudice. Plaintiff may renew its Motion in accordance with this Order.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
1 To adequately address the second and third Eitel factors, Plaintiff must discuss the merits
of each claim on which it is moving for default judgment.
Case 2:25-cv-00885-DJH Document 60 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 2