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.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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.,
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
Docket 23, 37
12 PROTECH SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation, individually and doing business
13 as PROTECH GENERAL CONTRACTING
On June 20, 2013, Plaintiffs1 filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant
Protech Services, Inc. (“Defendant”). Dkt. 23. On November 4, 2013, Magistrate Judge
Maria-Elena James (“the Magistrate”) issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
recommends that default judgment be entered against Defendant and that Plaintiffs be
awarded: (1) unpaid contributions in the amount of $51,654.35; (2) interest and liquidated
damages on the unpaid contributions in the amount of $37,534.46; (3) attorneys’ fees and
costs in the amount of $13,503.87; and (4) a mandatory injunction requiring Defendant to
submit to an audit of its financial records by Plaintiffs for the period July 1, 2009 to the
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”).
present. Dkt. 37. On November 4, 2013, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. Dkt.
Any objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation were required to be
filed within fourteen days of service thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,”
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
To date, no objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation has been
filed. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,
501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district
judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if [an]
objection is made, but not otherwise.”) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the record on its
face and finds no clear error. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. 37) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. The Clerk shall close
the file and terminate any pending matters.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
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?