Johnson v. Virk et al, No. 2:2009cv02600 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/17/2010 ORDERING that the 2/25/2010 motion hearing is VACATED. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Pltf's 9 motion for default judgment be granted. Judgment be awa rded against dfts Pritpal Virk and Ruby Virk in the amount of $8000. Injunctive relief be granted against dfts requiring a properly-configured van accessible disabled parking space with an accessible route to an accessible entrance in conformity with the ADAAG. Motion referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Engbretson, K.)

Download PDF

Johnson v. Virk et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SCOTT N. JOHNSON, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-2600 MCE JFM vs. 13 PRITPAL VIRK; RUBY VIRK, ORDER AND 14 Defendants. 15 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Presently calendared for hearing on February 25, 2010 is plaintiff’s motion for 17 entry of default judgment. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the court has determined that the 18 matter will be submitted on the papers without oral argument. Upon review of the motion and 19 the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT 20 MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 21 The complaint in this matter was served upon defendants Pritpal Virk and Ruby 22 Virk on October 22, 2009, and proof of service was filed November 6, 2009. Cf. Pacific 23 Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that 24 default judgment void without personal jurisdiction). The Clerk of the Court entered default 25 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 against both defendants on December 22, 2009. Plaintiff’s present motion for entry of default 3 judgment was served by mail on both defendants. Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the 4 5 complaint by the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 6 1977). Entry of default judgment is proper where, as in the present case, the facts established by 7 the default support the causes of action pled in the complaint. The complaint and the affidavits 8 filed in support of the motion for entry of default judgment also support the finding that plaintiff 9 is entitled to the relief requested in the prayer for default judgment, which does not differ in kind 10 from the relief requested in the complaint. Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315, 317 & n.2 (9th Cir. 11 1974). There are no policy considerations to preclude the entry of default judgment of the type 12 requested. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (enumerating factors to 13 be considered). Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit regarding costs. Plaintiff does not seek 14 15 attorney’s fees or litigation costs. The court finds the amount reasonable. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the February 25, 2010 hearing is 16 17 vacated; and 18 Furthermore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. Plaintiff's January 8, 2010 motion for entry of default judgment be 20 21 22 23 GRANTED; 2. Judgment be awarded against defendants Pritpal Virk and Ruby Virk in the amount of $8,000.00; and 3. Injunctive relief be granted against defendants requiring a properly-configured 24 van accessible disabled parking space with an accessible route to an accessible entrance in 25 conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) as set forth in 28 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 36. 2 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 2 3 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 4 fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 5 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 6 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 7 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 8 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 DATED: February 17, 2010. 10 11 12 13 014.john2600.def 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3

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.