Opinion
1:21-cv-1357 JLT SKO
10-04-2022
SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THREE BROTHERS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF'S “MOTION FOR DECREE PRO CONFESSO” (DOCS. 30, 33)
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. seeks to hold Three Brothers Electrical Contractors, Inc. and Alex Jones liable for failure to pay amounts due for the rental of its equipment. (See Doc. 1.) After the Court entered default against Three Brothers, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (Doc. 14.) On January 14, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge recommended the motion be denied without prejudice, because Jones had appeared to defend in the action and default judgment against the company could result in inconsistent determinations. (Doc. 19.) The Court adopted the findings and recommendations on February 3, 2022. (Doc. 21.)
On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for default judgment against Three Brothers. (Doc. 26) For the same reasons as before, the Magistrate Judge recommended the motion be denied without prejudice. (See Doc. 29.) The Court adopted the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 31.)
Plaintiff filed a “motion for decree pro confesso” on August 8, 2022. (Doc. 30.) The assigned Magistrate Judge recommended the motion be denied because Plaintiff had sought and obtained all the relief available to it under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at this stage of the proceedings. (Doc. 33.) The Court granted the parties 14 days from the date of service to file objections. (Doc. 33 at 3-4.) Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. 34.)
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case, including Plaintiff's objections. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court finds the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff has offered no legal argument to suggest why the reasoning set forth in the findings and recommendations is incorrect. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 6, 2022 (Doc. 33) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. Plaintiff's “motion for decree pro confesso” (Doc. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.