Trujillo v. Gogna ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE TRUJILLO, Case No. 1:22-cv-0707 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 PAUL GOGNA dba PRINCE FOOD & GAS, et al. (Docs. 13, 15, 16) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Jose Trujillo asserts Paul Gogna dba Prince Food & Gas; Huda-Cal. Properties, LLC; and 19 Akbar Ali Huda are liable for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil 20 Rights Act, and denial of full and equal access to public facilities under California law. (See 21 generally Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks default judgment against each of the defendants. (Docs. 13, 22 15.) 23 On March 1, 2023, the magistrate judge found “service was properly effected on 24 Defendants Akbar Huda and Huda-Cal, but service is not adequate as to Defendant Gogna.” 25 (Doc. 16 at 13; see also id. at 7-13.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion 26 be denied as to Gogna. (Id.) In addition, the magistrate judge found the allegations in the 27 complaint were insufficient to state a claim against Akbar Huda and Huda-Cal, because Plaintiff 28 failed to “sufficiently allege[] hat Defendants Akbar Huda or Huda-Cal. Properties, LLC, own or 1 | operate the Facility (Prince Food & Gas), which is a place of public accommodation.” (/d. at 18; 2 | see also id. at 15-18.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the motion for default judgment 3 || be denied as to defendants Huda and Huda-Cal as well. Ud. at 18, 25.) 4 The Findings and Recommendations included a notice that any objections must be filed 5 | within fourteen days of the date of service. (Doc. 16 at 25.) In addition, the Court advised the 6 | parties that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the 7 | ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (/d. at 26, citing Wilkerson v. 8 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839; Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, 9 | no objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. 10 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 11 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 12 | Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court 13 | ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations entered on March 1, 2023 (Doc. 16) are 15 ADOPTED IN FULL. 16 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 13) is DENIED; and 17 3. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _Mareh 27, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28