King v. Portfolio Preservation, LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GORDON KING, et al., No. 2:19–cv–1916–JAM–CKD 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 PORTFOLIO PRESERVATION, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On December 9, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 19 51) which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 21 filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 22 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 23 de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 24 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 25 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 27 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 51) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 28 //// 1 2. Plaintiffs’ motions for default judgment (ECF Nos. 45, 46) are GRANTED; 2 3. Judgment is entered in plaintiffs’ favor and against defendant Portfolio Preservation, LLC 3 dba Aegis Shield, and against Aegis American Risk Management Group. 4 4. Plaintiffs are awarded damages in the amount of $2,001,273.58. 5 5. Plaintiffs are awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $12,105.35. 6 7 Dated: December 29, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez 8 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28