Bergman et al v. Tobin et al

Filing 62

ORDER Adopting 56 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/5/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

LEIF BERGMAN and BERGMAN
LANDSCAPE INC.,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL P. TOBIN, HOLLY W. TOBIN, )
STEEL VENTURES, INC., UNITED
)
STATES OF AMERICA and BOB
)
VANELLA,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

1:11-cv-1866 LJO GSA
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Document 56)

16
17

Plaintiffs Leif Bergman and Bergman Landscape Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on

18

September 26, 2011.1 (Doc. 1). On that same day, Plaintiffs recorded two Notices of Pendency

19

of the Action. (Doc. 32-3, Exs. A and B). Pending before the Court is Defendants Michael and

20

Holly Tobins’ (“Defendants”) Motion to Expunge the Lis Pendens. (Docs. 32 and 34). As part

21

of the Motion, Defendants requested attorney’s fees and dismissal of the action.

22

On November 9, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

23

recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Expunge the Lis Pendens be denied and that the

24

requests for attorney’s fees and dismissal be denied. (Doc. 56). The Findings and

25

Recommendations were served on the parties with instructions that any objections be filed within

26

fifteen (15) days.

27
1

28

This case was initially filed in the Stanislaus County Superior Court and was removed to this Court by the
United States of America on November 9, 2011. (Doc. 1).

1

1

On November 21, 2012, Defendants did not file objections, but instead filed a document

2

entitled, “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.”

3

(Doc. 57). The parties were advised that the Court was construing this motion as objections.

4

The other parties were advised that any Response to the objections must be filed no later than

5

December 4, 2012. On December 4, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Response. (Doc. 59).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations dated

10

November 9, 2012 (Doc. 56), are ADOPTED IN FULL. Defendants’ Motions to Expunge Lis

11

Pendens be denied. Similarly, Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and their request for

12

dismissal of this action also be denied.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:
66h44d

December 5, 2012

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

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