Bhatia v. United States

Opinion

GAGAN BHATIA, No. 2:19-cv-02313-DAD-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 43, 52)

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

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