Ly et al v. Tran

Filing 63

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs Partial Objection [Dkt. 61] is OVERRULED; (2) The Court adopts the conclusions and findings set forth in Judge Davis Report & Recommendation [Dkt. 60] IN FULL. (3) The Clerk of Court shall enter defa ult judgment in favor of Plaintiff Yen Kim Ly and against Defendant Dung Quoc Tran in the amount of $18,000.00; (4) The Clerk of Court shall enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Mai Anh Tran and against Defendant Dung Quoc Tran in the amount of $242,394.18 in compensatory damages and $23,538.62 in interest. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 9/11/17. (gwalk, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division YEN KIN LY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUNG QUOC TRAN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:16cv1447(JCC/IDD) O R D E R For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs’ Partial Objection [Dkt. 61] is OVERRULED; (2) The Court adopts the conclusions and findings set forth in Judge Davis’ Report & Recommendation [Dkt. 60] IN FULL; (3) The Clerk of Court shall enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Yen Kim Ly and against Defendant Dung Quoc Tran in the amount of $18,000.00; (4) The Clerk of Court shall enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Mai Anh Tran and against Defendant Dung Quoc Tran in the amount of $242,394.18 in compensatory damages and $23,538.62 in interest; 1 (5) The Clerk of Court shall enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Baothu Huynh Nguyen and against Defendant Dung Quoc Tran in the amount of $17,546.20; and (6) The Clerk of Court shall forward this Order to all counsel of record and Defendant, pro se. THIS ORDER IS FINAL. September 11, 2017 Alexandria, Virginia /s/ James C. Cacheris UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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?