Perez v. Escalante

Full title: Danielle Perez, Plaintiff, v. Manuel Soto Escalante, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Apr 12, 2018

No. CV-17-1574-PHX-DKD (D. Ariz. Apr. 12, 2018)

Opinion

No. CV-17-1574-PHX-DKD

04-12-2018

Danielle Perez, Plaintiff, v. Manuel Soto Escalante, Defendant.

David K. Duncan United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

On December 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Application for Entry of Default and the Clerk of the Court entered default on December 5, 2017 (Docs. 11, 12). This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 16), and the Court having reviewed the pleadings on the issue of the relief to be awarded to Plaintiff, and the evidence presented by Plaintiff, finds that Defendant Manuel Soto Escalante was served with Plaintiff's summons and complaint, but failed to appear or otherwise defend this matter. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that a District Judge for the Phoenix Division grant Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 16).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Danielle Perez and against Defendant Manuel Soto Escalante as follows:

A. For Plaintiff's damages in the sum of Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Dollars and Zero Cents ($47,430.00);

B. For Plaintiff's attorneys' fees in the amount of Two Thousand Two Hundred and Twelve Dollars ($2,212.00);

C. For Plaintiff's costs in the amount of Six Hundred and Eighty Four Dollars and Seventy Cents ($684.70); and

D. For post-judgment interest on the above amounts at the rate of 2.07% per annum.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated this 12th day of April, 2018.

/s/_________

David K. Duncan

United States Magistrate Judge cc: SMM