Anderson v. Riverwalk Holdings, LTD et al
Filing
35
ORDER Adopting In Full the 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING without Prejudice the Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Default Judgment signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/11/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FREDERICK ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
RIVERWALK HOLDINGS, LTD, et al.
15
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:16-cv-00251- LJO - JLT
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(Docs. 26, 34)
Plaintiff Frederick Anderson, seeks the entry of default judgment Defendant Riverwalk
18
Holdings, Ltd. (Doc. 26) On December 16, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge found the factors
19
articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), weighed
20
against the entry of default judgment. (Doc. 34 at 4-7) In addition, the magistrate judge found it was
21
“in the interest of justice to not enter default judgment while Robert Kennard, Donald Nelson, and
22
Nelson & Kennard remain to defend.” (Id. at 8, citing SEC v. Loomis, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87021,
23
at *12-13 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2010) (finding just reason for delay in entry of default judgment “given the
24
overlapping nature of the claims as to different defendants”). Therefore, the magistrate judge
25
recommended Plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Id. at 8)
26
The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendation that the
27
action be dismissed. (Doc. 34 at 8) In addition, the parties were “advised that failure to file objections
28
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id., citing Martinez
1
1
v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To
2
date, no objections have been filed.
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United
4
School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case.
5
Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported
6
by the record and proper analysis.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
8
1.
ADOPTED IN FULL; and
9
10
The Findings and Recommendations dated December 16, 2016 (Doc. 34) are
2.
Plaintiff’s application for default judgment (Doc. 26) DENIED without prejudice.
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
January 11, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?