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

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1357 JLT SKO ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING THE 13 v. ) AMENDED MOTION FOR DEFAULT ) JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THREE BROTHERS ELECTRICAL ) CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., ) (Docs. 26, 29) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) ) 18 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.) The assigned magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied without prejudice (Doc. 19), which the Court adopted in full on February 2, 2022 (Doc. 21).

24 After moving for judgment on the pleadings against Jones (Doc. 22)1, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for default judgment against Three Brothers on June 15, 2022. (Doc. 26.) On July14, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge recommended the amended motion be denied without prejudice for the same 1 || reasons set forth in its prior findings and recommendations, namely, because Jones appeared to defen || in the action and default judgment against the company could result in inconsistent determinations.

3 || (Doc. 29.)

4 The parties were granted fourteen days from the date of service to file any objections to the || recommendation of the magistrate judge. (Doc. 29 at 2—3.) In addition, the parties were “advised that || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s || order.” (Ud. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). Thus, any objection || were due no later than July 28, 2022. To date, no objections have been filed.

9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case.

11 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court finds the findings and recommendations are supporte || by the record and proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 14, 2022 (Doc. 29) are ADOPTED IN 14 FULL; and 15 2. Plaintiff's amended motion for default judgment (Doc. 26) is DENIED without 16 prejudice.

18 ||IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 || Dated: _ August 10, 2022 ( Lin fi L. wan 20 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE