Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Blu Homes, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided October 12, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-01543·Unknown

Opinion

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE No. 2:21-cv-1543 KJM AC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BLU HOMES, INC., Defendant.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On March 22, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty one days. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff has not filed 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 March 22, 2022, are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED; 3. The court enters judgment in the amount of $351,972.88 in favor of plaintiff and against defendant; and 4. This case is closed. DATED: October 11, 2022. il ( tied ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Blu Homes, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Blu Homes, Inc. (Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Blu Homes, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donald Milton Orand v. United States
602 F.2d 207 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)