Alvarez Zardain v. IPACPA US, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/21/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL 18 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 14 Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice to renewal at the conclusion of the case on the merits. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ZARDAIN,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-1207-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

IPACPA US, INC., a Delaware
corporation, TRC HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment as to Defendant IPACPA U.S. Inc. was

19

submitted for decision without oral argument by the magistrate judge on August 18, 2015. The

20

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28

21

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

22

On February 25, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

23

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations

24

were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on March 10, 2016, and they were

25

considered by the undersigned, along with the response to those objections filed on March 17,

26

2016 on behalf of Defendant TRC Holdings, Inc.

27
28

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
1

1

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

2

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

3

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

4

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

5

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

6

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

7

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9
10

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 25, 2016, are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice to

11

renewal at the conclusion of the case on the merits.

12

Dated: March 21, 2016

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2