National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Lutge ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE No. 1:20-cv-1809-DAD-JLT COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 14 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT DENNIS LUTGE, an individual; and JUDGMENT 15 BROOKE CANTWELL, an individual, (Doc. No. 18, 20) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, asserts in its 19 complaint that defendants Dennis Lutge and Brooke Cantwell made unauthorized purchases using 20 funds from their employer, Tehachapi Public Cemetery District. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) In addition, 21 plaintiff contends Cantwell was paid for hours she did not work and received insurance benefits 22 to which she was not entitled as a part-time employee. (Id.) Plaintiff, which issued an insurance 23 policy to Tehachapi, seeks to hold the defendants liable for fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary 24 duty, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. 25 Plaintiff seeks the entry of default judgment against defendant Cantwell. (Doc. No. 18.) 26 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 27 and Local Rule 302. On May 25, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 28 recommendations determining that the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 1 | 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) weighed in favor of the entry of default judgment. (Doc. No. 20 at 2 | 4-10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion for default judgment be granted. 3 | In addition, the magistrate judge recommended damages be awarded in the amount of 4 | $263,888.00 and costs be awarded in the amount of $275. (/d. at 12.) 5 The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 6 | any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Ud.) No 7 | objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), the court has conducted a 9 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. However, 11 | because plaintiff concedes defendant Lutge has already paid it $6,250 (Doc. No. 18 at 10), 12 | the undersigned concludes that plaintiff has requested $257,656.00 in damages plus $275.00 in 13 | costs, as opposed to the $263,888.00 damages award recommended by the findings and 14 | recommendations, 15 Accordingly, 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 25, 2021 (Doc. No. 20) are 17 adopted; 18 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 18) is granted; 19 3. Plaintiffs request for damages in the amount of $257,656.00 is granted; 20 4. Plaintiffs request for costs in the amount of $275.00 is granted; and 21 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ |) Dated: _ June 28, 2021 Yole A Lara 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28