Helton et al v. Factor 5, Inc. et al
Filing
123
ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown ArmstrongACCEPTING 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Re 103 Motion for Default Judgment. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
JESSE HELTON; ALISHA PICCIRILLO;
Case No: C 10-04927 SBA
8 CHAD LOWE; individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
9
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs,
Docket 103, 121
10
vs.
11
FACTOR 5, INC.; FACTOR 5, LLC;
12 BLUHARVEST, LLC; WHITEHARVEST,
LLC; JULIAN EGGEBRECHT; HOLGER
13 SCHMIDT; THOMAS ENGEL; and DOES
1-100,
14
Defendants.
15
16
On June 19, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Application for Default Judgment Against
17
Factor 5 Defendants by Court ("motion for default judgment"). Dkt. 103. On July 22,
18
2013, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ("the Magistrate") for a
19
Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 114. On August 15, 2013, the Magistrate issued a
20
Report and Recommendation in which she recommends that this Court deny Plaintiffs'
21
motion for default judgment without prejudice. Dkt. 121.
22
Any objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation were required to be
23
filed within fourteen days of service thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §
24
636(b)(1)(C). The district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of
25
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,"
26
and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
27
made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
28
1
The deadline for Plaintiffs to object to the Report and Recommendation was August
2
29, 2013. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To
3
date, no objection has been filed. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court "need only
4
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
5
recommendation." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v.
6
U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,
7
328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ("The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear
8
that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de
9
novo if [an] objection is made, but not otherwise.") (en banc). The Court has reviewed the
10
11
record on its face and finds no clear error. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation
12
(Dkt. 121) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. This Order terminates
13
Docket 103 and Docket 121.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated: 9/12/2013
_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
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?