Quantum Capital Funding Corporation v. PDI Group, Inc. et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/5/2022 ADOPTING 51 Findings and Recommendations in full, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 49 Motion for Default Judgment. The motion is GRANTED with respect to liability as described in the order and DENIED with respect to liability in that defendant Gehm III is not liable for either intentional or negligent misrepresentation under the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action and DENIED without prejudice with respect to damages. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

QUANTUM CAPITAL FUNDING
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15
16

No. 2:18-cv-03279-WBS-KJN PS

(ECF Nos. 49, 51)
PDI GROUP, INC.; RG GROUP, LLC;
JOHN F. GEHM, JR.; JOHN F.
GEHM, III; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive,

17

Defendants.

18
On December 7, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF

19
20

No. 51), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

21

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. No objections were

22

filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

23

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

24

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

25

1983).
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

26
27

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full.

28

///
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 51) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

3

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED in part and DENIED

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

in part;
3. The motion is granted with respect to liability as follows:
a. All defendants are jointly and severally liable for PDI’s breach of contract under
the First Cause of Action;
b. RG Group is liable for RG Group’s breach of contract under the First Cause of
Action;
c. PDI and RG Group are each separately liable for their respective portions of the
money had and received claim in the Second Cause of Action;
d. PDI and RG Group are each separately liable for their respective portions of the
open book account claim in the Third Cause of Action;
e. PDI and RG Group are each separately liable for their respective portions of the
account stated claim in the Fourth Cause of Action;
f. PDI, Gehm Jr., and Gehm III are jointly and severally liable for PDI’s conversion
under the Seventh Cause of Action; and
g. RG Group is liable for RG Group’s conversion under the Seventh Cause of Action.

19

4. The motion is denied with respect to liability in that defendant Gehm III is not liable for

20

either intentional or negligent misrepresentation under the Fifth and Sixth Causes of

21

Action; and

22

5. The motion is denied without prejudice with respect to damages.

23
24

Dated: January 5, 2022

25
26
27
28
2