Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Youngman ( 2024 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT Case No. 2:23-cv-01052-MMD-EJY INSURANCE COMPANY, 7 ORDER Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 TABITHA YOUNGMAN, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 This dispute involves a Complaint for Interpleader that Plaintiff Hartford Life and 13 Accident Insurance Company initiated against Defendants Cassandra Youngman and 14 Tabitha Youngman relating to disputed death benefits (“the Benefits”). (ECF No. 1.) 15 Cassandra Youngman answered and asserted a crossclaim against Tabitha Youngman 16 for the Benefits. (ECF No. 11.) Before the Court are Cassandra Youngman’s motion for 17 default judgment against Tabitha Youngman (ECF No. 18) and Plaintiff’s motion for 18 default judgment against Tabitha Youngman (ECF No. 19). The Court finds that default 19 judgment is proper. Moving parties have satisfied the procedural requirements for default 20 judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). The Clerk properly entered a default against 21 Tabitha Youngman pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) because Tabitha Youngman has 22 failed to appear after having been properly served. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) Moving parties 23 have also satisfied the factors for obtaining default judgment articulated in Eitel v. McCool, 24 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). 25 It is therefore ordered that the two motions for default judgment (ECF Nos. 18, 19) 26 are granted. The Court will issue the proposed orders. 27 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter default judgment and close this 28 case. 1 DATED THIS 8" Day of April 2024. 4 MIRANDA M. DU 5 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28