OS Enterprise, LLC v. Fairline Development Canada (1992) LTD et al

Filing 60

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong ACCEPTING 58 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as to 49 Motion for Default Judgment. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

OAKLAND DIVISION

8

OS ENTERPRISE, LLC, a California limited

Case No: C 11-4375 SBA

9 liability company,

Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Docket 49, 58

12 FAIRLINE DEVELOPMENT CANADA

(1992) LTD., a Canada Corporation, and
13 TAWA SUPERMARKET, INC. dba 99

Ranch Market,
14

Defendants.
15
16

On September 6, 2013, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant

17

Fairline Development Canada (1992) Ltd. (“Fairline”), and ordered Plaintiff to file a

18

motion to prove damages. Dkt. 47. On November 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a statement of

19

damages to prove up default judgment against Fairline. Dkt. 49. On December 16, 2013,

20

this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte (“the Magistrate”) for a

21

Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 51. On March 7, 2014, the Magistrate issued a Report

22

and Recommendation in which she recommends awarding damages in the amount of

23

$1,830,228. Dkt. 58.

24

Any objection to the report and recommendation of a Magistrate Judge must be filed

25

within fourteen days of receipt thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

26

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or

27

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may

28

1

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

2

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

3

The deadline to object to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation was March

4

21, 2014. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1), (d); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To

5

date, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed. In the absence of a

6

timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of

7

the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee

8

Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see

9

also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute [28

10

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

11

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if [an] objection is made, but not

12

otherwise.”) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the record on its face and finds no clear

13

error. Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation

15

(Dkt. 58) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. This Order terminates

16

Docket 49 and Docket 58.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall file a memorandum, not to

18

exceed five (5) pages, by no later than seven (7) days from the date this Order is filed

19

showing cause why Defendant Tawa Supermarkets, Inc. should not be dismissed from this

20

action under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to timely effect

21

service within 120 days after the complaint was filed. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a

22

notice of voluntary dismissal as to Defendant Tawa Supermarkets, Inc. under Rule

23

41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to

24

timely comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of Tawa Supermarkets, Inc. from

25

this action.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

4/8/2014

28
-2-