James Toledano v. Priscilla Marconi et al

Filing 80

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 73 . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Courts own findings and conclusions; Defendants' ; Motions (Docket Nos 59, 62) are GRANTED IN PART; Plaintiff's malicious-prosecution claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend; Plaintiff's claim of fabrication of evidence and related claim of conspiracy to fabricate evidence are DISMISSED with leave to amend; AND If Plaintiff chooses to continue with this action, he shall file a Second Amended Complaint no later than APRIL 29, 2024. (et)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES TOLEDANO,

12

Plaintiff

13
14

v.
PRISCILLA MARCONI, et al.,

15

Case No. SACV 22-1331-MWF (BFM)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

Defendants.

16
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended

17
18

Complaint, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint

19

(“Motions,” Docket Nos. 59, 62), Plaintiff’s Oppositions to the Motions (Docket

20

Nos. 64, 65), the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

21

recommending granting the Motions in part (“Report,” Docket No. 73), the

22

Objections of the Parties (Docket Nos. 75, 76), the Replies/Responses to the

23

Objections filed by the parties (Docket Nos, 77-79), and other relevant records on

24

file.

25

Although not required, the Court briefly makes the following observations.

26

See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court

27

ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”); Wang v.

28

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a cursory district court order

1

summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, a magistrate judge’s report

2

and recommendation). Plaintiff’s Objections largely rehash facts and arguments

3

already presented in previous filings and considered by the detailed Report. (See,

4

e.g., Docket Nos. 28, 45, 64, 65, 76, 77). This of course begs the question of

5

whether Plaintiff should be allowed leave to amend, the main point Defendants press

6

in their Objections. (See Docket No. 75 at 2-4). As noted in this Court’s previous

7

order accepting the first Report and Recommendation prepared by a different

8

Magistrate Judge, “Defendants’ objections amount to this: Don’t grant leave to

9

amend because we’re sick of dealing with this Plaintiff.” (Docket No. 50 at 2). The

10

Court also previously indicated that “[p]erhaps futility of amendment could be

11

shown after the next round of briefing” (id.) — which is this round currently before

12

the Court.

13

While the Court understands Defendants’ frustration in the action proceeding

14

forward with a Second Amended Complaint as recommended by the Report, the

15

Magistrate Judge did not take the futility-of-amendment assessment lightly. Indeed,

16

she specifically declined to recommend dismissal with leave to amend Plaintiff’s

17

malicious-prosecution claim. (Docket No. 50 at 2, 12-17, 27-28). Moreover, the

18

Report analyzed and provided adequate reasons to allow Plaintiff another

19

opportunity, likely his last, to cure deficiencies in his fabrication-of-evidence claim

20

and related conspiracy-to-fabricate-evidence claim. (Id. at 2, 17-28). While there

21

may be valid reasons Plaintiff should not be treated as an ordinary pro se plaintiff as

22

Defendants contend (Docket No. 75 at 3), only one prior amendment has been

23

afforded so far. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (in absence of any

24

apparent or declared reason — such as “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

25

amendments previously allowed” — leave to amend should be freely given);

26

Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir.

27

2013). Accordingly, because the Report adequately considered whether leave to

28

amend should be granted, and because the recommendation is for only a second
2

1

amendment to one claim and its related conspiracy claim, the Court accepts the

2

disposition recommended by the Report.

3

The Objections of both parties are overruled.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

5

(1) The Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Court’s own findings and

6

conclusions;

7

(2) Defendants’ Motions (Docket Nos 59, 62) are GRANTED IN PART;

8

(3) Plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claim is DISMISSED without leave to

9
10
11
12
13

amend;
(4) Plaintiff’s claim of fabrication of evidence and related claim of conspiracy
to fabricate evidence are DISMISSED with leave to amend; AND
(5) If Plaintiff chooses to continue with this action, he shall file a Second
Amended Complaint no later than APRIL 29, 2024.

14
15
16

Dated: March 27, 2024

_________________________________
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3