Zardain v. IPACPA US, Inc., No. 2:2015cv01207 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/21/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL 18 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 14 Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice to renewal at the conclusion of the case on the merits. (Michel, G.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Zardain v. IPACPA US, Inc. Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ZARDAIN, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:15-cv-1207-MCE-EFB Plaintiff, v. ORDER IPACPA US, INC., a Delaware corporation, TRC HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-20, Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment as to Defendant IPACPA U.S. Inc. was 19 submitted for decision without oral argument by the magistrate judge on August 18, 2015. The 20 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 22 On February 25, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 23 which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations 24 were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on March 10, 2016, and they were 25 considered by the undersigned, along with the response to those objections filed on March 17, 26 2016 on behalf of Defendant TRC Holdings, Inc. 27 28 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 2 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 3 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 4 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 5 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 7 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 10 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 11 renewal at the conclusion of the case on the merits. 12 Dated: March 21, 2016 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
