G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Port City Sports Bar and Grill, LLC

E.D. California

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Port City Sports Bar and Grill, LLC

DecidedJanuary 2, 2024

Docket2:22-cv-01059

StatusUnknown

This text of G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Port City Sports Bar and Grill, LLC (G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Port City Sports Bar and Grill, LLC) 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

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Port City Sports Bar and Grill, LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, No. 2:22–cv–1059–JAM–KJN LLC, 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 (ECF Nos. 31, 34, 35.) v. 14 EVERETT HUNTER, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 20, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 34), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On October 27, 2023, 20 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35), which have been 21 considered by the court. 22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 25 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 26 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 27 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 28 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 1 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 2 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 3 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 34) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED IN PART, with 7 reductions in the total sought damages; 8 3. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the total amount of 9 $6,900.00, as follows: 10 a. $2,600.00 in damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II); 11 b. $3,000.00 in damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii); 12 c. $1,300.00 in damages for plaintiff’s state tort claim for conversion; and 13 4. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a motion for costs and attorneys’ fees within fourteen 14 (14) days from the date of entry of judgment. 15 Dated: January 02, 2024 /s/ John A. Mendez 16 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 17 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, No. 2:22–cv–1059–JAM–KJN LLC, 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 (ECF Nos. 31, 34, 35.) v. 14 EVERETT HUNTER, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 20, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 34), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On October 27, 2023, 20 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35), which have been 21 considered by the court. 22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 25 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 26 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 27 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 28 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 1 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 2 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 3 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 34) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED IN PART, with 7 reductions in the total sought damages; 8 3. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the total amount of 9 $6,900.00, as follows: 10 a. $2,600.00 in damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II); 11 b. $3,000.00 in damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii); 12 c. $1,300.00 in damages for plaintiff’s state tort claim for conversion; and 13 4. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a motion for costs and attorneys’ fees within fourteen 14 (14) days from the date of entry of judgment. 15 Dated: January 02, 2024 /s/ John A. Mendez 16 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 17 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Port City Sports Bar and Grill, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-g-closed-circuit-events-llc-v-port-city-sports-bar-and-grill-llc-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack