Anderson v. Riverwalk Holdings, LTD et al, No. 1:2016cv00251 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting In Full the 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING without Prejudice the Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Default Judgment signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/11/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREDERICK ANDERSON, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 RIVERWALK HOLDINGS, LTD, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00251- LJO - JLT ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Docs. 26, 34) Plaintiff Frederick Anderson, seeks the entry of default judgment Defendant Riverwalk 18 Holdings, Ltd. (Doc. 26) On December 16, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge found the factors 19 articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), weighed 20 against the entry of default judgment. (Doc. 34 at 4-7) In addition, the magistrate judge found it was 21 “in the interest of justice to not enter default judgment while Robert Kennard, Donald Nelson, and 22 Nelson & Kennard remain to defend.” (Id. at 8, citing SEC v. Loomis, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87021, 23 at *12-13 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2010) (finding just reason for delay in entry of default judgment “given the 24 overlapping nature of the claims as to different defendants”). Therefore, the magistrate judge 25 recommended Plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Id. at 8) 26 The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendation that the 27 action be dismissed. (Doc. 34 at 8) In addition, the parties were “advised that failure to file objections 28 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id., citing Martinez 1 1 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To 2 date, no objections have been filed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United 4 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 5 Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported 6 by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. ADOPTED IN FULL; and 9 10 The Findings and Recommendations dated December 16, 2016 (Doc. 34) are 2. Plaintiff’s application for default judgment (Doc. 26) DENIED without prejudice. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ January 11, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
