Thomas v. Aetna, Inc. et al

Filing 48

ORDER ADOPTING in FULL the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING Claim for PAGA Penalities Against Defendant Aetna Health of California, Inc.; ORDER DENYING Motion for Remand, 17 , 37 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/30/11. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14

DORRENDA THOMAS, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, and as an aggrieved
employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01906-AWI-SKO
RELATED CASE: 1:09-cv-01995-AWISKO
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

15
Plaintiff,
16
17

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM FOR
PAGA PENALITIES AGAINST
DEFENDANT AETNA HEALTH OF
CALIFORNIA, INC

v.

18
AETNA, INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
REMAND

19
20

Defendants.

Docket No. 17, 37
/

21
22

On June 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff’s

23

Motion for Remand be DENIED. (Doc. 37.) These Findings and Recommendations were served

24

on all parties appearing in the action and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within

25

fifteen (15) after service of the order. Plaintiff filed objections on June 16, 2011 (Docs. 39, 40, 41),

26

and Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on June 30, 2011 (Docs. 42, 43).

27

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

28

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, as well as Plaintiff’s objections

1

and Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s

2

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued June 2, 2011, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

5

2.

The claim for PAGA penalties asserted against Defendant Aetna Health of

6
7

California, Inc. is DISMISSED; and
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand is DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:
0m8i78

August 30, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2