Tenorio et al v. Gallardo et al

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STRIKING the Answer of Kern County Cultivation, Inc. and ENTERING Default 71 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/26/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUCARIA TENORIO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-0283-DAD-JLT

v.
GABRIEL GALLARDO SR., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS STRIKING THE
ANSWER OF KERN COUNTY
CULTIVATION, INC. AND ENTERING
DEFAULT
(Doc. No. 71)

17
18
19

On May 10, 2017, the court granted the motion of counsel to withdraw from their

20

representation of defendants Gabriel Gallardo, Sr., Manuel Gallardo, Silvia Gallardo, and Kern

21

County Cultivation, Inc. (Doc. No. 60.)1 In that order, the court noted that as a corporation, Kern

22

County Cultivation, Inc., would have to retain new counsel to proceed in this action because a

23

corporation may not appear without counsel. (Id.) On June 22, 2017, the assigned magistrate

24

judge issued an order requiring defendant Kern County Cultivation, Inc. to show cause why

25

sanctions, including the striking of its answer and the entry of default against it, should not be

26

imposed due to its failure to comply by appearing through new counsel. Nonetheless, defendant

27
28

1

As noted in that order, Silvia Gallardo signed the declaration on behalf of defendant Kern
County Cultivation, Inc. as its President. (See Doc. No. 54 at 3.)
1

1

Kern County Cultivation, Inc. failed to respond to the order to show cause or to appear in this

2

action through new counsel. Therefore, on August 3, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued

3

findings and recommendations recommending that defendant Kern County Cultivation, Inc.’s

4

answer be stricken and default be entered against it. (Doc. No. 71.)

5

The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the findings and

6

recommendations. (Doc. No. 71 at 4.) In addition, the parties were “advised that failure to file

7

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.”

8

(Id.) To date, no objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation have been filed.

9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court conducted a de

10

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and

11

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

12
13
14

Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations dated August 3, 2017 (Doc. No. 71) are adopted in
full;

15

2. Defendant Kern County Cultivation, Inc.’s answer (Doc. No. 52) is stricken; and

16

3. The Clerk of Court is directed enter default against defendant Kern County Cultivation,

17
18
19

Inc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 26, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2