Saechao v. Prime Recovery LLC

Opinion

MEY SAECHAO, No. 2:19-cv-1723 KJM DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER PRIME RECOVERY LLC a/k/a PRIME RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, Defendant. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(19). On May 26, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 13. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ///// ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 26, 2020 (ECF No. 13) are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff's November 15, 2019 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 10) is granted; 3. Judgment is entered against defendant Prime Recovery, LLC; 4. Defendant Prime Recovery, LLC is ordered to pay plaintiff $2,000 in statutory damages; 5. Plaintiffs request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied without prejudice to renewal; and 6. This case is closed. DATED: March 24, 2021.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE