Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Vuong, 2:14-cv-00709-KJM-DB. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180807c36 Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19). On July 11, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and no party has filed any objections
More

ORDER

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19). On July 11, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and no party has filed any objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 10, 2017 (ECF No. 19) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's October 3, 2017 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 79) is granted;

3. Judgment is entered against defendant Karl Vuong;

4. Defendant Karl Vuong is ordered to pay $12,000 in statutory damages;

5. Defendant Karl Vuong is ordered to correct the violations at the Mariscos Mazatlan identified in plaintiff's first amended complaint, to the extent that defendant has the legal right to do so, so that the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;

6. Defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff $3,660 in attorneys' fees and costs; and

7. This case is closed.

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