Jose Acosta v. Super Save & La Michuacana Markets, Inc. dba Super Save Market,...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSE ACOSTA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00105 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR SUPER SAVE & LA MICHUACANA ATTORNEYS’ FEES MARKETS, INC. dba SUPER SAVE MARKET, et al., (Docs. 17, 22) 16 Defendants.

18 Jose Acosta, who alleges he is disabled, asserts violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law for the failure to remove barriers to access at the Super Save Market located in Reedley, California. The Clerk of the Court entered default against defendants Super Save & La Michuacana Markets, Inc., Mohammed Jaber, Abdel Jaber, and Sultana Jaber on March 7, 2025. (Docs. 10-13.) Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement on April 22, 2025. (Doc. 14.)

23 Thereafter, on June 6, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, along with a request for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 17.)

25 On October 16, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the motion to enforce settlement agreement and related request for attorneys’ fees be denied without prejudice. (Doc. 22.) The magistrate judge determined that plaintiff had not provided authority demonstrating that it was appropriate for the court to enforce the | settlement agreement where the defendants were in default and had not appeared in the action.

2 | Ud. at 4-5.)

3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations plaintiff and notified him that any | objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 22 at 5.) The Court also informed 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.” (Ud. at 5, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, | 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed by any party and the time to do so | has expired.

9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case.

10 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes that the Findings and || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 16, 2025 (Doc. 22) are 13 ADOPTED.

14 2. Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement agreement and request for attorneys’ fees 15 (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

1g | Dated: _November 8, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE