Kern Vineyards, Inc. v. AM Group, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KERN VINEYARDS, INC., No.: 1:20-cv-0199 -NONE -JLT 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 12 AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 13 JUDGMENT AM GROUP, INC., et al., 14 (Docs. 25, 37) Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Kern Vineyards, Inc. asserts that it sold and shipped perishable commodities to 18 Defendant AM Group, Inc. (AM Group), which failed to pay for the table grapes received. Plaintiff 19 seeks to hold AM Group and its principal, Defendant Chris Kim (Kim), liable for breach of contract, 20 violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodity Act (PACA), 7 U.S.C. § 499e, breach of the 21 fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conversion. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants failed to respond to the 22 complaint, and plaintiff now seeks default judgment against AM Group and Mr. Kim. (Doc. No. 25.) 23 The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant plaintiff’s motion in part. 24 (Doc. No. 37.) The findings and recommendations reasoned that the factors set forth in Eitel v. 25 McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), weigh in favor of granting plaintiff’s motion for 26 default judgment. (Doc. 37 at 5–9.) The magistrate judge found Kern Vineyards established damages 27 in the amount of $146,045.00 under PACA. (Id. at 10.) In addition, the magistrate judge found 28 plaintiff was entitled to attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs. (Id. at 10–12.) Thus, the UVM EY OMAR VR □□□ OY POC ee Oy Ove 1 || magistrate judge recommended the motion for default judgment be granted in the amount of 2 ||$178,609.73. (Jd. at 12.)! 3 The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the above recommendations. 4 || (Doc. No. 37 at 12.) In addition, the parties were informed that “failure to file objections within the 5 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (/d. at 13, citing Martinez v. 6 || YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).) To da 7 no objections have been filed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 9 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of the case. 10 || Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are supported b 11 || the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated June 11, 2020 (Doc. No. 37) are 13 ADOPTED IN FULL; 14 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED in the amount of 15 $178,609.73; 16 3. The injunction is rescinded; 17 4. Funds currently held in trust, in the amount of $113,228.89 SHALL be applied to the 18 judgment; and 19 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED assign a district judge to this case for purpose of 20 termination and to close the action. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ai 23 |] Dated: _ June 25, 2020 Yel A Low 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 ||! The findings and recommendations were captioned as though they recommended granting the motion for default judgment only in part. The text of the findings and recommendations, however, 28 cleanly won that the recommendation was to grant the motion in its entirety and will be interpreted