Stuckey et al v. Lucas et al

Filing 60


Download PDF
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

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?