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

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, 

No. CIV S- 04-2501 WBS GGH

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

MICHAEL AND AMY WHITING, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

Defendants. 

___________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment against defendant Michael

Whiting, filed August 26, 2005, was submitted on the record. Local Rule 78-230(h). Upon

review of the motion and the supporting documents, and good cause appearing, the court issues

the following findings and recommendations.

BACKGROUND

On November 23, 2004, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in this action

against defendants Michael and Amy Whiting, individually and doing business as Whiting’s Oak

Furniture, alleging defendants denied him access to their retail store in violation of the

Americans With Disabilities Act and state law. The summons and complaint were personally

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02501-WBS-GGH Document 24 Filed 10/13/05 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

1

 The proof of service does not indicate service on Amy Whiting. Based on plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment, it is presumed that Amy is being dismissed from the action. 

Otherwise, an interlocutory partial judgment against Michael Whiting only would be improper.

2

served on defendant Michael Whiting, on December 20, 2004.1 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 August 2, 2005, the clerk entered default against defendant Michael

Whiting, individually and dba Whiting’s Furniture. 

Notice of entry of default and the instant motion for default judgment and

supporting papers were not served on defendant. If default judgment is sought against a party

who has appeared in the action, the party must be served with written notice of the application

for judgment at least three days prior to the hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). As defendant

Whiting never appeared in the action, there was no requirement that he be given notice of

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. See LG Electronics, Inc. v. Advance Creative Computer

Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1174 (N.D. Cal., 2002). Plaintiff seeks an entry of default

judgment in the amount of $4,000. 

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

memorandum of points and authorities and affidavits filed in support of the motion for entry of

default judgment also support the finding that plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. 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 2:04-cv-02501-WBS-GGH Document 24 Filed 10/13/05 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:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment be GRANTED as to Michael

Whiting dba Whiting’s Furniture. Judgment should be rendered in the amount of $4,000.

2. Defendant Amy Whiting be dismissed from this action.

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: 10/13/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Johnson2501.def.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02501-WBS-GGH Document 24 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 3