Kaur, et al., v Singh, et al.,, No. 2:2013cv00089 - Document 87 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2015 ORDERING that the 85 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiffs' 71 application for default judgment is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
Kaur, et al., v Singh, et al., Doc. 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KULWINDER KAUR, et al., 12 13 No. 2:13-cv-89-KJM-EFB Plaintiffs, v. ORDER 14 RAKWINDER SINGH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment came on regularly for hearing 18 before the assigned magistrate judge on December 3, 2014. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 After receiving supplemental briefing, on September 10, 2015, the magistrate 21 judge filed findings and recommendations, which contained notice to the parties that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiffs 23 filed objections on September 24, 2015, and they were considered by the undersigned. These 24 objections at their core dispute the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the Washington Industrial 25 Insurance Act (WIIA) applies to this action. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 27 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having studied the file, the court finds the 28 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 has previously concluded the WIIA applies in this action. It is therefore generally precluded from 2 reconsidering that issue, one “decided by the same court in the identical case.” Sechrest v. 3 Ignacio, 549 F.3d 789, 802 (9th Cir. 2008). The court has discretion to depart from its earlier 4 decision if “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest 5 injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or 6 (3) substantially different evidence was adduced . . . .” Minidoka Irrigation Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of 7 Interior, 406 F.3d 567, 573 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs have not shown a departure is warranted 8 here. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 11 12 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 10, 2015, are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment (ECF No. 71) is denied. DATED: September 30, 2015. 14 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.