JS Freight LLC v. Snow Joe LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS FREIGHT LLC, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0430 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT ) JUDGMENT SNOW JOE LLC, ) ) (Docs. 18, 20, 21) 15 Defendant. ) )

17 JS Freight LLC asserts Snow Joe LLC is liable for breach of contract. (See generally Doc. 1.)

18 After Defendant failed to answer to the complaint, the Court entered default against Defendant.

19 Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against Defendant. (Docs. 18, 20.) The magistrate judge found, “Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment does not meet the requirements of Rule 55(b)(1)” for entry of default judgment by the Clerk. (Doc. 21 at 3.) In addition, the magistrate judge observed: “[T]o the extent that Plaintiff is applying to the Court for a default judgment, Plaintiff addresses none of the Eitel factors, solely including a supporting affidavit which states: the date of service, that Defendant’s time to respond has expired, and that Defendant is neither a minor nor an incompetent person.” (Id. at 4.)

25 As a result, the magistrate judge determined default judgment was likewise not appropriate under Rule 55(b)(2), and recommended the motion be denied without prejudice. (Id.) 27 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified the company that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 21 at 4.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the || magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (/d. at 4, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838.

3 |] (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so expired.

4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 11, 2024 (Doc. 21) are 8 ADOPTED in full.

9 2. Plaintiff's motions for default judgment (Docs. 18 and 20) are DENIED without 10 prejudice.

12 ||IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: _ January 3, 2025 ( Pui LU | WY) h \ 14 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE