Jeffery Hersey v. Westlake Financial Services, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-07282
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JEFFERY HERSEY, Case No. 25-cv-07282-NW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION

10 WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES, et Re: ECF No. 7 al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On August 28, 2025, self-represented Plaintiff Jeffery Hersey sued Westlake Financial 14 Services (“Westlake”) and two Westlake employees.1 Compl., ECF No. 1. In addition, Plaintiff 15 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. Magistrate Judge 16 DeMarchi denied Plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 915(e)(2). After the 17 deadline to amend had passed without Plaintiff filing a new application, the Court issued an order 18 to show cause for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 5. 19 On October 31, 2025, Judge DeMarchi issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to 20 refer Plaintiff’s case to the undersigned judge and to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. R&R, ECF 21 No. 7. The Court adopts the R&R in full. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On September 4, 2025, Judge DeMarchi denied Plaintiff’s IFP application without 24 prejudice, noting among other things that Plaintiff provided inconsistent information in the 25 application and signed the document as “Hersey. Jeffrey D. Agent to Principal,” “suggesting that 26 he may have filed the complaint and IFP application on behalf of someone else, who remains 27 1 unidentified.” ECF Nos. 2, 4. Judge DeMarchi ordered Plaintiff to either file a renewed and 2 complete IFP application or pay the filing fee by September 26, 2025. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff did 3 not file a renewed IFP application or pay the filing fee by the Court’s September 26, 2025 4 deadline. 5 On October 8, 2025, Judge DeMarchi ordered Plaintiff to show cause by October 30, 2025, 6 why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 5. On October 29, 2025, 7 an individual identifying himself as “Hersey, Jeffrey D., Agent and Attorney-in-Fact for Principal 8 JEFFERY HERSEY” filed a document titled “Emergency Motion and Restitution Request—Court 9 Acknowledgement of Standing and Amended Contract Reference.” ECF No. 6. The two- 10 paragraph motion asked the Court to exercise its “inherent and sua sponte authority” to grant relief 11 on the merits without awaiting a response from Westlake. Id. 12 On October 31, 2025, Judge DeMarchi issued an R&R, recommending that (i) the case be 13 reassigned to a district judge, (ii) Plaintiff’s October 29, 2025 Emergency Motion be denied, and 14 (iii) the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. ECF 15 No. 7. Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R were due by November 14, 2025. 16 On November 10, 2025, the individual identifying himself as “Hersey, Jeffrey D., Agent 17 and Attorney-in-Fact for Principal JEFFERY HERSEY” filed an “Emergency Motion for Relief 18 based on Physical Hardship and Humanitarian Consideration.” ECF No. 9. Plaintiff did not file 19 any other documents or objections before November 14, 2025. 20 On November 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document reiterating his claims and included 21 photographs. ECF No. 10. He signed the document twice, once with his name “Jeffrey Hersey” 22 and a second time as “Hersey, Jeffrey D.”; elsewhere in the document he references “Agent and 23 Attorney-in-Fact: Hersey, Jeffrey D.” Id. Plaintiff made numerous additional filings over the next 24 several weeks, including his December 4, 2026 “Third Amended Complaint,” in which he 25 describes allegations against “Toyota Motor Credit Corporation” and signed the document as 26 himself and his “Agent & Attorney-in-Fact.” ECF No. 13. To date, Plaintiff has not filed 27 objections to the R&R, and has not provided the Court with a renewed and complete IFP request. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 The district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are set forth in 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Within fourteen days after being 4 served with the R&R, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed 5 findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “Only objections that reference specific 6 portions of the report and recommendation will trigger de novo review—general or conclusory 7 objections do not suffice.” Ali v. Grounds, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1249 (S.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d, 772 8 F. App’x 580 (9th Cir. 2019). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those 9 portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in 10 whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 11 § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo an R&R to which neither party objects. 12 United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 Courts have an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to 14 construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt. Akhtar v. 15 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 While Plaintiff filed a document titled “Emergency Motion for Relief based on Physical 18 Hardship and Humanitarian Consideration” on November 10, 2025, Plaintiff did not specifically 19 object to or reference the R&R. Even construing Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion liberally, his filing 20 does not contain information that is adequately specific to trigger de novo review. Plaintiff did not 21 address his noncompliance with the Court orders or provide reasons why this case should not be 22 dismissed for failure to comply with these orders. Instead, Plaintiff requested “immediate relief 23 from the Court because of severe and unnecessary physical hardship caused by continued financial 24 demands connected to a prepaid credit obligation described in [his] earlier filings.” ECF No. 9. 25 Following the expiration of the November 14, 2025 deadline, Plaintiff filed seven 26 additional documents on the docket.2 ECF Nos. 10-16. None of these filings raised any 27 ] objections to the R&R. 2 Accordingly, even construing Plaintiffs various filings liberally, Plaintiff has not objected 3 || tothe R&R. The Court finds the R&R correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and adopts it in every 4 || respect. 5 || IV. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's complaint is 7 || DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Plaintiff's October 8 || 29, 2025 Emergency Motion is DENIED. Additionally, Plaintiff's procedural motions, ECF Nos. 9 9, 10, 12, are terminated as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 27, 2026

5 Noél Wise 13 United States District Judge

(44

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 hearing, discovery requests, requests for the Court’s assistance with copies, envelopes and 28 a: mailings, and a request to add a new defendant.