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-