The Board of Trustees, in their Capacities as Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California et al v. Protech Services, Inc.

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong ACCEPTING 37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as to 23 Motion for Default Judgment. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5

OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in their

Case No: C 12-1047 SBA

8 capacities as Trustees of the LABORERS

HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND
9 FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Docket 23, 37

vs.

12 PROTECH SERVICES, INC., a California

corporation, individually and doing business
13 as PROTECH GENERAL CONTRACTING

SERVICES,
14

Defendant.
15
16

On June 20, 2013, Plaintiffs1 filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant

17

Protech Services, Inc. (“Defendant”). Dkt. 23. On November 4, 2013, Magistrate Judge

18

Maria-Elena James (“the Magistrate”) issued a Report and Recommendation in which she

19

recommends that default judgment be entered against Defendant and that Plaintiffs be

20

awarded: (1) unpaid contributions in the amount of $51,654.35; (2) interest and liquidated

21

damages on the unpaid contributions in the amount of $37,534.46; (3) attorneys’ fees and

22

costs in the amount of $13,503.87; and (4) a mandatory injunction requiring Defendant to

23

submit to an audit of its financial records by Plaintiffs for the period July 1, 2009 to the

24
25
1

The Plaintiffs are: The Board of Trustees, in their capacities as Trustees of the
Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California; Laborers Vacation27 Holiday Trust Fund for Northern California; Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern
California; and Laborers Training and Retraining Trust Fund for Northern California
28 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
26

1

present. Dkt. 37. On November 4, 2013, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. Dkt.

2

39.

3

Any objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation were required to be

4

filed within fourteen days of service thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §

5

636(b)(1)(C). The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of

6

the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,”

7

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

8

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

9

To date, no objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation has been

10

filed. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is

11

no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”

12

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

13

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

14

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district

15

judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if [an]

16

objection is made, but not otherwise.”) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the record on its

17

face and finds no clear error. Accordingly,

18

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

19

(Dkt. 37) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. The Clerk shall close

20

the file and terminate any pending matters.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

1/13/2014

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-