Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01188/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01188-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS SMITH, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FRED VAN DYK, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1188 LJO DLB

ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ON DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

(Document 51)

On December 27, 2007, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant

defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The findings and recommendation were served

on all parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within twenty (20) days of the date

of service of the order. Plaintiff filed objections on January 17, 2008. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff’s

objections, this Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and

proper analysis. 

Plaintiff objects only to the recommendation that he return sums collected by garnishment

of Defendant’s wages. Insofar as he argues that Defendant did not request return of the money in

his moving papers and there was no such discussion at the hearing, Defendant raised the issue in his

reply, and it was open for discussion at the hearing. In any event, it is axiomatic that when a

Case 1:05-cv-01188-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 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

2

judgment is vacated, all sums collected in satisfaction of that judgment must be returned. Allowing

Plaintiff to retain money collected pursuant to a void and vacated judgment would be contrary to law

and wholly inequitable, especially considering the invalid service of process which resulted in the

set aside default judgment. 

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the December 27, 2007 findings and recommendations;

2. GRANTS Defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment;

3. SETS ASIDE the December 29, 2006 default and VACATES the May 8, 2007

judgment;

4. ORDERS Plaintiff to cease immediately garnishment of Defendant’s wages and to

return to Defendant, no later than February 19, 2008, all sums collected by

garnishment to date; and

5. ORDERS the parties, no later than January 30, 2008, to advise this Court whether

they consent to the conduct of all further proceeding, including trial, by a magistrate

judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01188-DLB Document 56 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2