Central Valley Ranch, LLC et al v. World Wide Investments, LLC II et al

Filing 29

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/10/2010 adopting in full 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting 13 Motion to Strike Serenity Financial Group's Answer. (Lundstrom, T)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs Central Valley Ranch, LLC, Gordon W. Shaw Properties, Inc. and William 17 Barkett ("Plaintiffs") filed this action on January 5, 2010. On March 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the 18 instant motion to strike the answer of Defendant Serenity Financial Group, LLC ("Serenity"). 19 Plaintiffs moved to strike the answer based on the failure of Serenity, a business entity, to be 20 represented by an attorney. 21 On May 21, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 22 Plaintiffs' motion to strike Serenity's answer be GRANTED. The Findings and 23 Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 24 filed within fourteen (14) days of service. 25 On June 8, 2010, Defendants Bryan Pilosi and Raviv Wolfe, proceeding pro se, filed a 26 document entitled "Declaration." The Court construes this document as an untimely objection to 27 the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. On June 8, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a reply. 28 1 CENTRAL VALLEY RANCH, LLC, et al., ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) WORLD WIDE INVESTMENTS, LLC II, ) et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) 1:10cv020 LJO DLB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER (Document 23)

U N IT ED ST A T ES D IS T R IC T COU R T

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: 66h44d

In the objection, Defendants Pilosi and Wolfe claim that neither they nor Serenity were served with the motion to strike or the show cause order issued by the Court on April 20, 2010. Defendants object based on a lack of proper notice. This objection lacks merit. The Court docket reflects that Defendants were served with these documents, as well as the Findings and Recommendations. Defendants Pilosi and Wolfe also claim that the Court permitted them until July 14, 2010, to obtain an attorney for Serenity. The record in this action belies Defendants' claim. On April 13, 2010, the Court held a Scheduling Conference. The docket reflects that it was continued to allow "defendants to retain counsel." Doc. 21. Subsequently, on April 20, 2010, the Court issued a show cause order directing Defendants to demonstrate why Serenity's answer should not be stricken or for Serenity's counsel to file a notice of appearance within 20 days. More than 20 days passed. Defendants did not respond and no notice of appearance was filed. Accordingly, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Serenity's answer be stricken. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued May 21, 2010, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. 3. Plaintiffs' motion to strike Serenity Financial Group's answer is GRANTED; and The answer of Serenity Financial Group, LLC, is STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. June 10, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2