Gonzalez v. JAG Trucking, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LEONEL GONZALEZ and JONATHAN No.: 1:18-cv-01046-NONE-JLT 11 BASULTO, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE 12 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT 13 vs. JUDGMENT 14 JAG TRUCKING, INC. et al., (Docs. 123, 124, 125, 126) 15 Defendants. ____________________________________ 16 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS 17 18 This case arises from a May 8, 2018 multi-car accident on a stretch of Interstate 5 known as 19 “the Grapevine.” (Docs. 123, 124, 125, 126 at 4.) Plaintiffs Leonel Gonzalez and Jonathan Basulto 20 brought a negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress action against Defendants JAG 21 Trucking, Inc. and Joshua Nicholson, who in turn cross complained against Juan Carlos A Hernandez 22 and Francisco Javier Jimenez Tapia dba Pitufos Transport. (Id.) Defendants later amended their cross 23 complaint to add all involved parties through a declaratory relief cause of action. (Id.) Cross- 24 plaintiffs, JAG Trucking, Inc. and Joshua Nicholson moved for default judgment against four 25 defaulted cross-defendants: Frank Lopez, Isaiah Gonzalez, Jose Alvarado and Juana Leuvano. (Doc. 26 Nos. 123, 124, 125, 126.) Specifically, cross-plaintiffs requested entry of judgments indicating that 27 each of the four defaulted cross-defendants would take nothing by way of any affirmative claim or 28 ///// WAS 4.40°U MARS VRP RMVVUPTIOCTI TNR □□□ TF Oye eve defense. (/d.) No opposition to the motion for default judgment was filed. (See Doc. No. 127 at 2.) 2 All other aspects of this case have been resolved globally through federal court mediation. (See Doc. 3 No. 128 at 2.) 4 On June 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation 5 || recommending that the pending motions for default judgment be granted, providing the parties 6 || fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendations. (Doc. No. 128.) In addition, the parties 7 || were “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal th 8 || District Court’s order.” (Doc. No. 128 at 6, citing Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); 9 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To date, no objections have been filed anc 10 || the time period for doing so has expired. ll In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 12 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 13 || Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations are supported t 14 || the record and proper analysis. All of the procedural pre-requisites for default judgment have been 15 || observed, and the record supports the magistrate judge’s conclusion that all of the relevant factors set 16 || forth in Fitel vy. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), weigh in favor of entry of the 17 || requested judgments. 18 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The findings and recommendations dated June 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 128) are ADOPTED I 20 FULL; and 21 2. Cross-plaintiffs’ motions for default judgment are GRANTED (Doc. Nos. 123, 124, 125, 22 126). 23 34 IT IS SO ORDERED. = 4 os || Dated: _ July 9, 2020 Pe 1 Pood UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28