Perez v. Escalante
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS RECOMMENDED that a District Judge for the PhoenixDivision grant Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 16 ). IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court enter default judgment infavor of Plaintiff Danielle Perez and against Defendant Manuel Soto Escalante as stated in this order. This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See document for complete details). Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 4/12/18. (SLQ)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel Soto Escalante,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
On December 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Application for Entry of Default and the
Clerk of the Court entered default on December 5, 2017 (Docs. 11, 12). This matter
having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 16), and
the Court having reviewed the pleadings on the issue of the relief to be awarded to
Plaintiff, and the evidence presented by Plaintiff, finds that Defendant Manuel Soto
Escalante was served with Plaintiff’s summons and complaint, but failed to appear or
otherwise defend this matter. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that a District Judge for the Phoenix
Division grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 16).
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court enter default judgment in
favor of Plaintiff Danielle Perez and against Defendant Manuel Soto Escalante as
and Thirty Dollars and Zero Cents ($47,430.00);
For Plaintiff’s costs in the amount of Six Hundred and Eighty Four Dollars
and Seventy Cents ($684.70); and
For Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of Two Thousand Two
Hundred and Twelve Dollars ($2,212.00);
For Plaintiff’s damages in the sum of Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred
For post-judgment interest on the above amounts at the rate of 2.07% per
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment.
The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this
recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter,
the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure
timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may
result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without
further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will
be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an
order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See
Rule72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated this 12th day of April, 2018.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?