Bever v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. et al

Filing 128

ORDER on 125 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Plaintiff's Motions to Alter and Vacate Deadlines and Scheduling Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 05/04/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GLENN W. BEVER,

8

Plaintiff

9
10
11

CASE NO. 1:11-CV-1584 AWI SKO

v.
CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE
CORP., et al.,

ORDER ON FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO ALTER
AND VACATE DEADLINES AND
SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants

12

(Doc. Nos. 106, 108, 125)

13
14

On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the Scheduling Order’s February 27,

15

2014 deadline for filing amended pleadings. See Doc. No. 106. On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a

16

motion to alter or amend the Scheduling Order. See Doc. No. 108. On May 16, 2014, the

17

Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) that recommended denying

18

both of Plaintiff’s motions. See Doc. No. 125. On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the

19

F&R. See Doc. No. 127.

20

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

21

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the

22

Magistrate Judge’s analyses and conclusions are supported by the record and proper analysis. The

23

Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objections and adopt the F&R.1 The issue of amending the

24

complaint to add new parties and/or reasserting dismissed claims have been addressed and ruled

25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that in Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff states that he did not write down dates and relied upon the
Court to send him a copy of the Scheduling Order. However, the Court did send Plaintiff a copy of the order
(although it was apparently not actually received) and Plaintiff does not explain why he did not contact the Court
about not receiving a copy of the order. The Scheduling Conference occurred on December 5, 2013, the scheduling
conference order was filed and served on December 6, 2013, and Plaintiff filed a motion to amend on February 7,
2014. Two months passed between the Scheduling Conference and Plaintiff’s motion to amend, yet there is no
indication that he contacted the Court regarding the failure to receive the scheduling order.

1
2
3
4
5

upon on the merits, and amendment will not be permitted. This case remains stayed as to CalWestern Reconveyance, but continues to proceed against Citi Mortgage on one claim of violation
of California Civil Code § 2923.5. Trial as to Citi Mortgage remains set for November 18, 2014,
and a settlement conference between Plaintiff and Citi Mortgage remains set for June 30, 2014.
See Doc. No. 87.

6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1.

The Court ADOPTS IN FULL the Findings and Recommendations filed on May 16, 2014

8
(Doc No. 125); and
9
2.
10

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate and stay (Doc. No. 106) and motion to alter scheduling order
(Doc. No. 108) are DENIED.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: June 4, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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