Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00251/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00251-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Frederick Anderson, seeks the entry of default judgment Defendant Riverwalk 

Holdings, Ltd. (Doc. 26) On December 16, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge found the factors 

articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), weighed 

against the entry of default judgment. (Doc. 34 at 4-7) In addition, the magistrate judge found it was 

“in the interest of justice to not enter default judgment while Robert Kennard, Donald Nelson, and 

Nelson & Kennard remain to defend.” (Id. at 8, citing SEC v. Loomis, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87021, 

at *12-13 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2010) (finding just reason for delay in entry of default judgment “given the 

overlapping nature of the claims as to different defendants”). Therefore, the magistrate judge 

recommended Plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Id. at 8)

The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendation that the 

action be dismissed. (Doc. 34 at 8) In addition, the parties were “advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id., citing Martinez 

FREDERICK ANDERSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RIVERWALK HOLDINGS, LTD, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00251- LJO - JLT

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Docs. 26, 34)

Case 1:16-cv-00251-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To 

date, no objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United 

School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported 

by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 16, 2016 (Doc. 34) are 

ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. Plaintiff’s application for default judgment (Doc. 26) DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00251-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 2