Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00206/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00206-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sierra Seed Internacional SA de CV,

Sierra Seed Company, LLLP, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Al Harrison Company Distributors, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 13-CV-206-TUC-RCC

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 13) and Magistrate

Judge Leslie Bowman’s Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 14), recommending that

the district court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. For

the following reasons, the Court will adopt the R&R.

I. BACKGROUND

This Court fully incorporates by reference the “Factual and Procedural History”

section of the R&R into this order. 

On Marcy 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging breach of contract under the

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”).

Defendant did not file a timely response to the Complaint and the Clerk entered default

against Defendant on April 8, 2013 (Doc. 10). Plaintiff subsequently moved for default

judgment (Doc. 13). Magistrate Judge Bowman has recommended that the district court

grant Plaintiff’s motion to the extent Plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain, but deny Plaintiff’s

Case 4:13-cv-00206-LAB Document 15 Filed 07/02/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

claims for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest, as these amounts are covered by state

statutes which do not apply in this case. Further, Judge Bowman concluded that attorney’s

fees are not sum certain, and are therefore unavailable to a party moving for default

judgment. No objections have been filed to the R&R and the time to object has passed.

II. DISCUSSION

The duties of the district court in connection with a R&R are set forth in Rule 72 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1).

Where the parties object to a R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v.

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection has been

made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

(9th Cir.1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see

also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation).

The Court will not disturb a Magistrate Judge's Order unless his factual findings are

clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

“[T]he magistrate judge's decision ... is entitled to great deference by the district court.”

United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001). A failure to raise an

objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

Case 4:13-cv-00206-LAB Document 15 Filed 07/02/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

Id. (internal citations omitted).

 Plaintiff has filed no objections to the R&R, which relieves the Court of its obligation

to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003); Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does

not ... require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”);

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate

judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers the R&R to

be thorough and well-reasoned. However, even after a thorough and de novo review of the

record, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Therefore, the Court

will ADOPT the R&R of Magistrate Judge Bowman (Doc. 14).

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 14) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions

of law by this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s

Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 13). Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s claim

for the pre-interest amount due under the contract as well as Plaintiff’s actual costs.

Plaintiff’s complaint is denied as to Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees and Plaintiff’s claim

for prejudgment interest.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk shall enter judgment against Defendant Al

Harrison Company Distributors, in amount of $72,452.18, plus costs of $410, and close this

case.

DATED this 28th day of June, 2013.

Case 4:13-cv-00206-LAB Document 15 Filed 07/02/13 Page 3 of 3