Stuckey et al v. Lucas et al

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE 51 42 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/27/2012)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 11-05196 SI

HENRY STUCKEY, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs,
v.
LUCAS, et al.,
Defendants.

/

11
12

Currently before the Court are plaintiffs’ “motion for a default judgment” (Dkt. 42), “motion for

13

an order” (Dkt. 48), and Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero’s September 12, 2012, Report and

14

Recommendation (Dkt. 51).

15

On July 5, 2012, the Clerk of the Court entered a default against defendants. On July 24,

16

plaintiffs filed a motion for a default judgment. On September 12, 2012, Judge Spero issued a Report

17

and Recommendation that plaintiffs’ motion for default be denied and that the case against defendants

18

be dismissed in its entirely, with prejudice. On September 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed objections to Judge

19

Spero’s Report and Recommendation, primarily on the basis that plaintiffs “won the above case” when

20

the Court entered default against defendants on July 5, 2012.

21

As Judge Spero’s Report and Recommendation makes clear, a defendant’s default does not

22

automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered default judgment. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d

23

915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986). “Granting or denying a motion for default judgment is a matter within the

24

court’s discretion.” Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WL 2889490, at *2 (C.D.

25

Cal. Jul. 19, 2010) (quoting Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. v. Bryant, 2004 WL 783123, at *1 (C.D.

26

Cal. Feb. 13, 2004)). Where service on defendant is proper, the Court considers a series of factors to

27

determine whether default judgment is appropriate. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th

28

Cir. 1986). Judge Spero’s Report and Recommendation carefully considered these factors and concluded

1

that plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state any claims whatever. Judge Spero found that plaintiffs’ federal

2

claim fails as a matter of law and plaintiffs allege no facts whatsoever to support their state law claims.

3

See Dkt. 48 at 5-7. This Court has reviewed plaintiffs’ motions and Judge Spero’s Report and

4

Recommendation, and finds that plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the reasons stated in the Report and

5

Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES

6

the case WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’ remaining motions are terminated as moot. This Order

7

resolves Docket Nos. 42, 48, and 51.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: November 27, 2012

12

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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