Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Three Brothers Electrical Contractors, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01357-JLT-SKO Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND 12 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION v. 13 FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE DENIED; ORDER VACATING 14 HEARING THREE BROTHERS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., and ALEX JONES, (Doc. 26) 16 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE: 14 DAYS _________________________________ ____ / 19 Plaintiff Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) seeks to hold Defendants Three Brothers Electrical Contractors, Inc. (“Three Brothers”) and Alex Jones (“Jones”) liable for failure to pay amounts due for the rental of its equipment. (See Doc. 1.) After the Court entered default against Three Brothers, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against the company alone. (Doc. 14.)

23 On January 14, 2022, the undersigned recommended the motion be denied without prejudice, because Jones had appeared to defend in the action and default judgment against the company could result in inconsistent determinations. (Doc. 19, citing Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872); In re First T.D. & Investment, Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001).) The assigned district judge adopted the findings and recommendations in full on February 3, 2022. (Doc. 21.)

28 On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant amended motion for default judgment against Three Brothers. (Doc. 26.) The undersigned recommends that the amended motion for default judgment be denied without prejudice for the same reasons set forth in its prior findings and recommendations. (See Doc. 19.)

4 The posture of this case remains unchanged: Plaintiff has not moved for default judgment against Jones nor has Plaintiff dismissed him from this action. In fact, Plaintiff has since filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against Jones, seeking the same monetary relief as was sought against Three Brothers in the instant motion. (Compare Doc. 22 with Doc. 26.) Plaintiff does not identify any change in circumstance that would justify the Court departing from its prior analysis.1 Indeed, Plaintiff does not mention, much less address, the Court’s prior findings and recommendations or the case authority cited therein. The Court therefore sees no reason to depart from its previously entered findings and recommendations, and Plaintiff has supplied none.

12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, for the reasons set forth in the undersigned’s prior findings and recommendations (Doc. 19), Plaintiff’s amended motion for entry of default judgment against Defendant Three Brothers Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Doc. 26) be DENIED without prejudice to its renewal at the conclusion of this action, upon disposition of Plaintiff’s claims against Jones. The hearing on the motion, set for July 27, 2022, is VACATED.

17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may The only development in the case since the denial of Plaintiff’s prior motion for default judgment against Three Brothers is Plaintiff’s filing of its motion for judgment on the pleadings against Jones, which remains pending before waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: July 14, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE