Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00430/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00430-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
JS Freight LLC
Plaintiff
Snow Joe LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS Freight LLC asserts Snow Joe LLC is liable for breach of contract. (See generally Doc. 1.) 

After Defendant failed to answer to the complaint, the Court entered default against Defendant. 

Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against Defendant. (Docs. 18, 20.) The magistrate judge found, 

“Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment does not meet the requirements of Rule 55(b)(1)” for entry of 

default judgment by the Clerk. (Doc. 21 at 3.) In addition, the magistrate judge observed: “[T]o the 

extent that Plaintiff is applying to the Court for a default judgment, Plaintiff addresses none of the Eitel

factors, solely including a supporting affidavit which states: the date of service, that Defendant’s time 

to respond has expired, and that Defendant is neither a minor nor an incompetent person.” (Id. at 4.) 

As a result, the magistrate judge determined default judgment was likewise not appropriate under Rule 

55(b)(2), and recommended the motion be denied without prejudice. (Id.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified the company that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 21 at 4.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to 

JS FREIGHT LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SNOW JOE LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0430 JLT BAM

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

(Docs. 18, 20, 21)

Case 1:24-cv-00430-JLT-BAM Document 22 Filed 01/03/25 Page 1 of 2
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

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id. at 4, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 

(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so expired.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having 

carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 

by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 11, 2024 (Doc. 21) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment (Docs. 18 and 20) are DENIED without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-00430-JLT-BAM Document 22 Filed 01/03/25 Page 2 of 2