Bhatia v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 GAGAN BHATIA, No. 2:19-cv-02313-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 15 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 43, 52) 16

17 18 On November 15, 2019, plaintiff Gagan Bhatia filed this civil action against defendant 19 United States of America. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 7, 2021, defendant filed its counterclaim and 20 third-party complaint against third-party defendants Harinder Bhatia and Harleen Bhatia 21 (collectively, “the Bhatias”).1 (Doc. No. 11.) The Clerk of the Court entered default as to the 22 Bhatias because they were served with process and did not file a timely answer, responsive 23 pleading, or otherwise appear in this action. (See Doc. Nos. 26, 27, 30, 32.) On August 28, 2024, 24 defendant filed the pending motion for default judgment as to the Bhatias. (Doc. No. 43.) The 25 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 26 Local Rule 302. 27

28 1 On August 25, 2022, this action was reassigned to the undersigned. (Doc. No. 20.) 1 On May 23, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 2 recommending that defendant’s motion for default judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 52 at 8.) 3 Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that denial of the pending motion would leave 4 defendant without a remedy; that defendant has sufficiently alleged its third-party claims and that 5 those claims have merit; that the amount of money at stake weighs against default judgment; that 6 there is not a likelihood for a dispute of material fact; that it is “inconceivable” that the Bhatias’ 7 failure to defend this action is due to excusable neglect; and that the Bhatias’ failure to appear has 8 made a judgment on the merits impossible. (Id. at 4–7.) As a result, the magistrate judge 9 concluded that consideration of the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting the pending motion 10 for default judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). The 11 magistrate judge therefore recommended that judgment be entered in favor of defendant in the 12 amount of $636,413.94 plus additional interest as provided by 26 U.S.C. § 6601. (Doc. No. 52 at 13 8.) 14 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 15 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) 16 To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in 17 which to do so has now passed. 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 19 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 20 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 21 Accordingly: 22 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 23, 2025 (Doc. No. 52) are 23 ADOPTED in full; 24 2. The motion for default judgment filed on behalf of defendant United States of 25 America (Doc. No. 43) is GRANTED; and 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant and 2 third-party plaintiff United States of America and against third-party defendants 3 Harinder Bhatia and Harleen Bhatia in the amount of $636,413.94 as of July 17, 4 2024 plus additional interest as provided by 26 U.S.C. § 6601. ° | Dated: _ June 30, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28