Garcia v. Hillcrest, Davidson and Associates LLC
4:16-cv-00265
D. Ariz.Aug 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Paul R. Garcia sued Hillcrest, Davidson and Associates LLC; defendant failed to respond and default was entered.
- Magistrate Judge D. Velasco issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending grant of Garcia’s amended motion for default judgment.
- No party filed objections to the R&R.
- The district court reviewed the R&R, finding it thorough and well-reasoned, and considered the applicable standards for review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
- The court adopted the R&R, granted the amended motion for default judgment, but deferred entry of the default judgment pending supplemental briefing on costs and attorney’s fees.
- The court ordered that if Garcia fails to file supplemental materials within 30 days, the clerk will enter default judgment awarding $1,000 in statutory damages and no fees or costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the R&R should be reviewed de novo | Garcia implicitly argues adoption is appropriate (no objection) | No objection made | Court may accept R&R without de novo review; adopted R&R |
| Whether default judgment should be granted | Garcia seeks default judgment against defendant | Defendant did not respond/contest | Court granted default judgment (entry deferred for fee/cost determination) |
| Whether attorney's fees and costs should be decided now | Garcia requested fees/costs and briefing | No opposition/participation from defendant | Court deferred fees/costs determination pending plaintiff’s supplemental briefing; set 30-day deadline; otherwise award limited statutory damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (district court need not review R&R de novo absent objections)
- Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2005) (no de novo review required when R&R not objected to)
- United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for unobjected-to R&R and effect of waiver)
- United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001) (magistrate judge decisions entitled to deference)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object waives objections to magistrate judge’s factual findings)