From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graham v. Forever Young Or., Llc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Sep 10, 2014
Case No. 3:13-cv-01962-HU (D. Or. Sep. 10, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 3:13-cv-01962-HU

09-10-2014

TAMMY GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. FOREVER YOUNG OREGON, LLC., an Oregon corporation; RONALD ZEMP; and JENNIFER ZEMP, Defendants.


ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Dennis James Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on August 19, 2014. Dkt. 28. Judge Hubel recommended that Ms. Graham's ("Graham") motion for default judgment be granted. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), the court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files objections to a magistrate's findings and recommendations, "the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) ("There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report to which no objections are filed."). The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed," the court review the magistrate's findings and recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record."

The general rule, however, is that "default judgments are ordinarily disfavored," and whether to grant a judgment by default is within the discretion of the district court. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the Court has reviewed Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation de novo. Cf. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154 (observing that the Act does not "preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard").

The Court agrees with Judge Hubel's analysis. Judge Hubel properly scrutinized Graham's calculations of her unpaid overtime wages, FLSA liquidated damages, Oregon penalty wages, and post-judgment interest, and found that they were reasonable and accurate. Judge Hubel also properly analyzed Graham's application for attorney's fees and costs under the Ninth Circuit's twelve-factor test, see Kerr v. Screen Extra Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1988), and found that they should be granted. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (Dkt. 28). Graham's motions for default judgment (Dkt. 17) and attorney's fees (Dkt. 19) are GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of September, 2014.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Graham v. Forever Young Or., Llc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Sep 10, 2014
Case No. 3:13-cv-01962-HU (D. Or. Sep. 10, 2014)
Case details for

Graham v. Forever Young Or., Llc.

Case Details

Full title:TAMMY GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. FOREVER YOUNG OREGON, LLC., an Oregon…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Sep 10, 2014

Citations

Case No. 3:13-cv-01962-HU (D. Or. Sep. 10, 2014)

Citing Cases

Sarkisian v. Newmar Indus.

These factors are “similar to those the Oregon legislature has directed courts to consider in determining…

Hosp. Mgmt. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Grp.

These factors are “similar to those the Oregon legislature has directed courts to consider in determining…