Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01207-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ZARDAIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

IPACPA US, INC., a Delaware

corporation, TRC HOLDINGS, INC., a

Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1207-MCE-EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment as to Defendant IPACPA U.S. Inc. was 

submitted for decision without oral argument by the magistrate judge on August 18, 2015. The 

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On February 25, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations 

were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on March 10, 2016, and they were

considered by the undersigned, along with the response to those objections filed on March 17, 

2016 on behalf of Defendant TRC Holdings, Inc.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Case 2:15-cv-01207-MCE-EFB Document 22 Filed 03/22/16 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

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 25, 2016, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice to 

renewal at the conclusion of the case on the merits. 

Dated: March 21, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01207-MCE-EFB Document 22 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 2