BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. v. GSK TRANSPORT, INC., et al.

E.D. California

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. v. GSK TRANSPORT, INC., et al.

DecidedSeptember 16, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01753

StatusUnknown

This text of BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. v. GSK TRANSPORT, INC., et al. (BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. v. GSK TRANSPORT, INC., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. v. GSK TRANSPORT, INC., et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., Case No. 2:24-cv-1753-WBS-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GSK TRANSPORT, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was submitted for decision without oral 18 argument by the magistrate judge on May 21, 2025. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On May 30, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 22 filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 30, 2025, are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiffs motion for default judgment, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED. The court enters 5 | judgment against defendants in the amount of $243,664.45, plus interest accruing at a per diem 6 | rate of $114.42 from February 10, 2025, through the date judgment is entered; and 7 3. Plaintiff's request for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED without prejudice to 8 || renewal to a timely motion brought under Local Rule 292 and 293. 9 | Dated: September 15, 2025 tite ~ ~ ak beg! 4-~<——— 10 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., Case No. 2:24-cv-1753-WBS-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GSK TRANSPORT, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was submitted for decision without oral 18 argument by the magistrate judge on May 21, 2025. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On May 30, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 22 filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 30, 2025, are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiffs motion for default judgment, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED. The court enters 5 | judgment against defendants in the amount of $243,664.45, plus interest accruing at a per diem 6 | rate of $114.42 from February 10, 2025, through the date judgment is entered; and 7 3. Plaintiff's request for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED without prejudice to 8 || renewal to a timely motion brought under Local Rule 292 and 293. 9 | Dated: September 15, 2025 tite ~ ~ ak beg! 4-~<——— 10 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. v. GSK TRANSPORT, INC., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bmo-harris-bank-na-v-gsk-transport-inc-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack