Bergman et al v. Tobin et al

Filing 58

ORDER on Reconsideration Request and to Permit Defense Reply signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/26/2012. Response due by 12/4/2012.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
LEIF BERGMAN, et al.,

CASE NO. CV F 11-1866 LJO GSA

12
Plaintiff,

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
AND TO PERMIT DEFENSE REPLY
(Doc. 57.)

13
vs.
14
MICHAEL P. TOBIN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18

On November 21, 2012, defendants Michael P. Tobin and Holly W. Tobin (collectively the

19

“Tobins”) filed their request to reconsider (doc. 57) the Findings and Recommendations Denying Motion

20

to Expunge Lis Pendens (doc. 56). This Court construes the Tobins’ reconsideration request as

21

objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in pertinent part:

22
23
24

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge
of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

25
26

This Court will conduct a de novo review of the findings and recommendations, pursuant to 28

27

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and thus will not treat the Tobin’s reconsideration request as proceeding under Local

28

Rule 303(c), which employs the standard of review of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). No later than
1

1

December 4, 2012, the other parties may file a response to the Tobins’ reconsideration request.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d

November 26, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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
2