Kaur, et al., v Singh, et al.,
Filing
87
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2015 ORDERING that the 85 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiffs' 71 application for default judgment is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KULWINDER KAUR, et al.,
12
13
No. 2:13-cv-89-KJM-EFB
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
14
RAKWINDER SINGH, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment came on regularly for hearing
18
before the assigned magistrate judge on December 3, 2014. The matter was referred to a United
19
States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
20
After receiving supplemental briefing, on September 10, 2015, the magistrate
21
judge filed findings and recommendations, which contained notice to the parties that any
22
objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiffs
23
filed objections on September 24, 2015, and they were considered by the undersigned. These
24
objections at their core dispute the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the Washington Industrial
25
Insurance Act (WIIA) applies to this action.
26
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
27
this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having studied the file, the court finds the
28
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court
1
1
has previously concluded the WIIA applies in this action. It is therefore generally precluded from
2
reconsidering that issue, one “decided by the same court in the identical case.” Sechrest v.
3
Ignacio, 549 F.3d 789, 802 (9th Cir. 2008). The court has discretion to depart from its earlier
4
decision if “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest
5
injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or
6
(3) substantially different evidence was adduced . . . .” Minidoka Irrigation Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of
7
Interior, 406 F.3d 567, 573 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs have not shown a departure is warranted
8
here.
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
10
11
12
13
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 10, 2015, are adopted in
full; and
2. Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment (ECF No. 71) is denied.
DATED: September 30, 2015.
14
15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?