Esco Marine Inc. v. SS Pacific Star et al
ORDER adopting in full 163 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/21/11. Plaintiff's 148 motion for default judgment and interlocutory sale of vessel, construed as a motion for interlocutory sale of vessel only, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 162 proposed order is approved as to form and substance, except that the date of the sale is rescheduled to November 7, 2011.(Kastilahn, A)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESCO MARINE INC.,
No. CIV S-11-1353 KJM-GGH
SS PACIFIC STAR; et al.,
This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with
Local Rule 302(c)(3).
On October 11, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to parties that any objections to the
findings and recommendations were to be filed within five days1 after service of the findings and
The unique procedural posture of this case must be addressed. The typical practice in
this court is to allow fourteen days to respond to a magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations. See E.D. LOCAL RULE 304(b). However, “[t]he court may require a response
within a shorter period if exigencies of the calendar require.” United States v. Barney, 568 F.2d
134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978). Here, not only did defendants fail to file objections, but they also
failed to file oppositions to the motion the findings and recommendations address; moreover,
were the court to allow a longer objection period, plaintiff would be irrevocably prejudiced.
recommendations. The five-day period has expired, and defendants have not filed objections to
the findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand
v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law
are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to
be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2011 (ECF 163) are
adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and interlocutory sale of vessel,
construed as a motion for interlocutory sale of vessel only, filed on September 16, 2011 (ECF
148), is GRANTED; and
3. The proposed order filed by plaintiff on October 7, 2011 (ECF 162) is
approved as to form and substance, except that the date of the sale is rescheduled to November 7,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 21, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On October 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a request for amendment of the findings and
recommendations, changing the date of sale from October 28, 2011 to November 7, 2011. (ECF
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?