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)

Download PDF
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

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?