Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00485/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00485-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA STRATEGIES, LLC,

No. CIV S-07-0485 RRB DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER AND

MICHAEL HEWITT, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

On May 22, 2007, defendants filed a motion to set aside default pursuant to Rule 55(c)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on

July 13, 2007.

Pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(19), “[m]otions for entry of default judgment under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)” are expressly referred to the assigned magistrate judge. However, there is no

similar provision for automatic referral of motions to set aside default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). 

In the absence of a referral pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(a), defendants’ motion to set aside default

must be re-noticed for hearing before the assigned district judge.

After defendants filed their motion to set aside default, plaintiff filed a motion for

default judgment. Plaintiff’s motion contains no citation to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) but is necessarily

brought pursuant to that rule and has been properly noticed for hearing before the undersigned pursuant

Case 2:07-cv-00485-JAM-DAD Document 24 Filed 07/03/07 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

2

to Local Rule 72-302(c)(19). However, in light of defendants’ pending motion to set aside default,

consideration of plaintiff’s motion is premature.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ May 22, 2007 motion to set aside default is dropped from this court’s

July 13, 2007 calendar and shall be re-noticed for hearing before the assigned district judge;

2. Plaintiff’s June 4, 2007 motion for default judgment is taken under submission

pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h) and is dropped from this court’s July 13, 2007 calendar; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s June 4, 2007 motion for default judgment be

denied without prejudice to the filing of a renewed motion if the assigned district judge denies

defendants’ pending motion to set aside default.

The findings and recommendations set forth above are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to objections shall be served and filed within ten (10)

days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 3, 2007.

DAD:kw

DDad1\orders.civil\californiastrategies0485.ord

Case 2:07-cv-00485-JAM-DAD Document 24 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 2