Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00777/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00777-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

- 1 - 03cv777

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH L. GRANDLUND, an individual,

and on behalf of the general public,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 03-CV-777 WQH (WMc)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

vs.

CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS &

MANAGEMENT COMPANY, an entity of

unknown form; FRANK WHITE, an

individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

I. Introduction

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 106)

filed on September 25, 2006 by the Honorable William McCurine Jr., United States Magistrate Judge.

The Report and Recommendation set October 10, 2006, as the deadline for either party to file

objections. Neither party filed objections. The Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Papas’s Report

and Recommendation in its entirety, and accordingly finds Defendant Frank White, a.k.a. Josh Rausch

(“Defendant”) in civil contempt and strikes his Answer.

II. Standard of Review

When no objections are filed, the district court may assume the correctness of the findings of

fact by the Magistrate Judge and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States

Case 3:03-cv-00777-WQH-WMC Document 107 Filed 10/19/06 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 - 03cv777

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974). The failure to file objections relieves the district court

of the burden to give de novo review to findings of fact; the conclusions of law must be reviewed de

novo. Brilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

III. Background

Defendant is the only remaining defendant in this lawsuit. On August 1, 2006, the Court

issued an Order scheduling a Status Conference to take place on August 23, 2006. Defendant failed

to appear and failed to notify the Court that he would not attend. The Court then issued an Order to

Show Cause on August 24, 2006, requiring Defendant to provide a written response, and to appear

telephonically on September 7, 2006, to show cause as to why he did not attend the August 23, 2006

Status Conference, and why sanction should not be imposed. Defendant failed to appear or otherwise

respond on September 7, 2006. On that date, the Court issued another Order to Show Cause, requiring

Defendant to personally appear on September 22, 2006, which stated, in part: “If Defendant White

does not personally attend the OSC hearing on September 22, 2006 or make alternative arrangements

to appear telephonically, the Court will recommend that Defendant White’s Answer be stricken.”

(Report and Recommendation (quoting doc. no. 103).) Defendant again failed to appear, and failed

to notify the Court that he would not attend. Nor has Defendant notified the Court of any change of

address.

IV. Ruling of the Court

As a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with these three Court Orders, and pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), Magistrate Judge McCurine recommends that Defendant’s

Answer be stricken. Under Rule 16(f), if a party fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order or if a

party fails to appear at a scheduling or pretrial conference, the Court may order sanctions, including

striking the parties’ pleadings, a sanction made available under Rule 37(b)(2)(C). Pursuant to Rules

16(f) and 37(b)(2)(C), and in light of the three Orders ignored by Defendant–the last of which

specifically warned him that Magistrate Judge McCurine would recommend the striking of his

Answer–the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and ORDERS that Defendant White’s

Answer be stricken.

Case 3:03-cv-00777-WQH-WMC Document 107 Filed 10/19/06 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 - 03cv777

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the September 25, 2006 Report and

Recommendation (doc. no. 106), and ORDERS that Defendant White’s Answer be stricken.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2006

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00777-WQH-WMC Document 107 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 3