EHealthline.com, Inc. v. Pharmaniaga Berhad ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 E*HEALTHLINE.COM, INC., a Delaware No. 2:18-cv-1069-MCE-EFB corporation, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 PHARMANIAGA BERHAD, and 15 MODERN INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT HOLDING GROUP COMPANY 16 LIMITED, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Modern Industrial Investment Holding 20 Group Company Limited (“Modern”) was submitted for decision without oral argument by the 21 magistrate judge on February 25, 2020. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 22 Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 23 On September 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 24 which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations 25 were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on September 24, 2020, and they 26 were considered by the undersigned. 27 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 28 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 2.40 VLU INS EP MUO VO POO Ie OY oe 1 | Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 2 || to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 3 || assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 4 | States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 5 || reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 7 || concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 11, 2020, are ADOPTED in full. 10 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 81) is DENIED for lack of personal 11 | jurisdiction. 12 3. Having determined that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against 13 || Modern, that Defendant is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: October 4, 2020 Eo 17 { late rf LEK. is SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28