Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vestis LLC v. Caramel Sales Ltd., 8:18-cv-02257-DOC-KES. (2019)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20191211a12 Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 171.) No objections to the R&R were filed, 1 and the deadline for doing so has passed. The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate J
More

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 171.) No objections to the R&R were filed,1 and the deadline for doing so has passed. The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Vestis and Ginve Modas are directed to pay Defendants $9,960.00 within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of this Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).2

2. A default judgment shall be entered against Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Vestis and Ginve Modas and for Defendants//Counter-Claimants on the claims in the Complaint (Dkt. 1 at 8).

3. A default judgment shall be entered against Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Vestis and Ginve Modas and for Defendants/Counter-Claimants on the claims in the Second Amended Counterclaims (Dkt. 55, 56).

4. After entry of this Order, the only claims that remain pending in this action are the claims brought by Defendants/Counter-Claimants against Counter-Defendants Morgan Recchia and Sergia Recchia in the Second Amended Counterclaims (Dkt. 55, 56).

FootNotes


1. Although Plaintiffs' counsel filed a "response" to the R&R, this states only that Plaintiffs "no longer consider [counsel's firm] their attorneys" and have failed to give counsel any instructions on how to respond to the R&R. (Dkt. 174)
2. Plaintiffs' counsel is not responsible for this award, but nothing in this order precludes the Court from later finding that Plaintiffs' counsel is responsible for other sanctions currently being sought by Defendants (see, e.g., Dkt. 127).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer