Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00300-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stuart McDonald
Defendant
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING

AGENCY,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-05-0300 WBS GGH

vs.

STUART MCDONALD,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Defendant. 

___________________________/

Plaintiff’s second amended application for default judgment against defendant

Stuart McDonald, filed November 18, 2005, was vacated from this court’s calendar for

December 8, 2005, and taken under submission. Upon review of the application and the

supporting documents, and good cause appearing, the court issues the following findings and

recommendations.

BACKGROUND

On February 14, 2005, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in this action

against defendant Stuart McDonald, alleging defendant had engaged in excavation and vegetation

removal in a stream environment zone, dumped and disposed of materials in a stream

Case 2:05-cv-00300-WBS-GGH Document 18 Filed 05/19/06 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

 Although plaintiff initially sought injunctive relief in the complaint, plaintiff does not 1

request any such relief in the default judgment motion.

2

environment zone, and caused material damage to trees, in violation of the Tahoe Regional

Planning Compact, Pub. Law 96-551, 94 Stat. 3233, Cal. Gov. Code § 66801 et seq., and the

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (“TRPA”) Code of Ordinances. The summons and

complaint were personally served on defendant Stuart McDonald, on April 10, 2005. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th

Cir. 1985) (default judgment void without personal jurisdiction). Defendant has failed to file an

answer or otherwise appear in this action. On October 11, 2005, the clerk entered default against

defendant Stuart McDonald.

The instant application for default judgment and supporting papers were served by

mail on defendant at his last known address. Defendant filed no opposition to the application for

entry of default judgment. Plaintiff seeks an entry of default judgment in the amount of

$15,000.00.1

DISCUSSION

Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the

complaint by the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir.

1977). The court finds the well pleaded allegations of the complaint state a claim for which

relief can be granted. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). The

application and declarations filed in support of the application for default judgment also support

the finding that plaintiff is entitled to the damages and fees and costs requested. The declarations

detail the amount of civil penalties which could be charged (far in excess of $15,000.00) and

provide a reasoned basis for arriving at $15,000.00. There are no policy considerations which

preclude the entry of default judgment of the type requested. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d

1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00300-WBS-GGH Document 18 Filed 05/19/06 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

3

In view of the foregoing findings, it is the recommendation of this court that

plaintiffs’ application for entry of default judgment be GRANTED. Judgment should be

rendered in the amount of $15,000.00.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable William B.

Shubb, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). 

Within ten days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 5/19/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Tahoe0300.def.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-00300-WBS-GGH Document 18 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 3