Block v. California-Fresno Investment Company et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations Denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/19/2023. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HENDRIK BLOCK,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA-FRESNO INVESTMENT
COMPANY, et al.

Case No. 1:22-cv-1419 JLT SAB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
(Docs. 11, 14, 15)

Defendants.

17
18

Hendrik Block seeks to hold the defendants—including California-Fresno Investment

19

Company, dba Bad Buds Gas and Car Wash, and Cedar Plaza, Inc.—liable for violations of the

20

Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Health

21

and Safety Code §§ 19953 et seq. (See Doc. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States

22

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against the defendants. (Doc. 11.) The magistrate

24

judge found Plaintiff “failed to establish proper service of process” for CFIC, dba Bad Buds Gas

25

and Car Wash. (Doc. 14 at 30; see also id. at 6-17.) The magistrate judge also found “Plaintiff

26

failed to establish Cedar Plaza owns, leases, or operates the Facility so as to be a properly named

27

Defendant in this action.” (Id. at 30; see also id. at 19-22.) Therefore, the magistrate judge

28

recommended the motion for default judgment be denied. (Id. at 30.)
1

1

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff, and it contained a

2

notice that any objections were to be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 14 at 31.)

3

In addition, the Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time

4

may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.”

5

(Id. at 31, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

6

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not object.

7

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case.

8

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations

9

are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

10

1.

11

The Findings and Recommendations entered on April 24, 2023 (Doc. 14) are
ADOPTED IN FULL.

12

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 11) is DENIED.

13

3.

The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 19, 2023

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2