ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. Nos. 26, 29)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiffs J.A.J., a minor, through his mother and guardian ad litem Crystal Botello, individually and as successor in interest for Santana Juarez Gonzalez, deceased ("decedent"); Santana Juarez Jimenez, individually; and Teresa Gonzalez-Velazquez, individually (collectively, "plaintiffs"), filed their complaint in this action on August 22, 2018. (Doc. No. 1.)

The complaint included causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; California Civil Code § 52.1(b); negligence; and assault and battery claims against California Highway Patrol Officer Efrain Jimenez ("officer Jimenez"). (Id.) On October 9, 2018, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") naming as defendants officer Jimenez, and A.J., a minor, through her mother and next friend Selene Ramos, individually and as successor in interest for decedent, which is now the operative pleading in the action. (Doc. No. 9)

Officer Jimenez was served with the complaint on October 9, 2018 and filed his answer on October 24, 2018. (See Doc. Nos. 9, 14.) Ultimately, plaintiffs were unable to serve defendant A.J. and sought an order from the assigned magistrate judge permitting them to serve her by publication. (Doc. No. 17.) On December 27, 2018, the magistrate judge granted plaintiffs' request to serve defendant A.J., through her mother and next friend Selene Ramos, by publication. (Doc. No. 18.)

To date, defendant A.J. has neither filed an answer nor made any attempt to appear in the action. Plaintiffs requested the Clerk of Court to enter default against defendant A.J. on April 5, 2019 (Doc. No. 24), and the request was granted on April 8, 2019 (Doc. No. 25). On May 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of default judgment against defendant A.J. (Doc. No. 26.) The motion was referred to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302. No opposition to plaintiffs' motion was filed.

On June 13, 2019, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiffs' motion for default judgment be denied without prejudice because defendant A.J. is a minor for whom no guardian ad litem has appeared. (Doc. No. 29.) "A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared." Fed. R. of Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Because a guardian ad litem has not been appointed for nominal defendant A.J., the magistrate judge concluded that the court could not grant plaintiffs' motion for default judgment at this time. (Doc. No. 29 at 2-3.) The findings and recommendations provided that any party could file objections thereto within fourteen (14) days. To date, no objections have been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

IT IS SO ORDERED.