Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Three Brothers Electrical Contractors, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1357 JLT SKO ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING THE 13 v. ) MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 THREE BROTHERS ELECTRICAL ) CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., ) (Docs. 14, 19) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. seeks to hold defendants Three Brothers Electrical Contractors and Alex 19 Jones liable for failure to pay amounts due for the rental of its equipment. After the Court entered 20 default against Three Brothers Electrical Contractors, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment 21 against the company alone. (Doc. 14.) On January 14, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge 22 recommended the motion be denied without prejudice, because Jones appeared to defend in the action 23 and default judgment against the company could result in inconsistent determinations. (Doc. 19, citing 24 Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872); In re First T.D. & Investment, Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 25 (9th Cir. 2001).) 26 The parties were granted fourteen days from the date of service to file any objections to the 27 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 19 at 7.) In addition, the parties were “advised that 28 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s 1 || order.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). Thus, any objections 2 || were due no later than January 28, 2022. To date, no objections have been filed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 4 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 5 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are 6 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 14, 2022 (Doc. 19) are ADOPTED 8 IN FULL; and 9 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 14) is DENIED without prejudice. 10 11 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: _ February 3, 2022 ( LAW pA LU. wan 13 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28