Zardain v. Ipacpa United States, Inc.

Full title: ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ZARDAIN, Plaintiff, v. IPACPA US, INC., a Delaware…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 21, 2016

No. 2:15-cv-1207-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2016)

Opinion

No. 2:15-cv-1207-MCE-EFB

03-21-2016

ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ZARDAIN, Plaintiff, v. IPACPA US, INC., a Delaware corporation, TRC HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-20, Defendants.

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ORDER

Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment as to Defendant IPACPA U.S. Inc. was submitted for decision without oral argument by the magistrate judge on August 18, 2015. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On February 25, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on March 10, 2016, and they were considered by the undersigned, along with the response to those objections filed on March 17, 2016 on behalf of Defendant TRC Holdings, Inc.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 25, 2016, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice to renewal at the conclusion of the case on the merits. Dated: March 21, 2016

/s/_________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT