Michele Petersen v. County of Stanislaus et al

Filing 39

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS And Remanding Action (Docs. 30 , 37 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/17/2013. CASE CLOSED.REMANDING CASE to Stanislaus County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MICHELE PETERSEN,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CHRISTINE )
APPLEGATE; KIM VIEIRA; BERGEN
)
FILGAS; GEORGE MEDINE; DOE 1;
)
DOE 2; DOE 3; DOE 4; DOES 5
)
through 25, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:12-cv-00933-AWI-BAM
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AND REMANDING ACTION
(Docs. 30, 37)

18
19

The Court refers the parties to previous orders for a complete chronology of the proceedings. On

20

May 3, 2012, plaintiff Michele Petersen (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint in Stanislaus County

21

Superior Court against defendants County of Stanislaus, Christine Applegate, Kym Vieira

22

(erroneously sued as Kim Vieira), Bergen Filgas, George Medine (collectively, “Defendants”), Doe

23

1, Doe 2, Doe 3, Doe 4 and Does 5 through 25, asserting nine causes of action for employment

24

discrimination, retaliation, harassment, deprivation of civil rights, intentional infliction of emotional

25

distress, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent

26

supervision and defamation. On June 8, 2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court pursuant

27

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(b). On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint

28

against Defendants and, on March 6, 2013, a motion (doc. 30) to remand the action to state court.

1

On April 1, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations (doc. 37)

2

recommending Plaintiff’s motion to remand be granted and this action remanded to state court.

3

Objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 15 days of service of the

4

recommendation. As of 8:30 a.m. on April 17, 2013, no objections had been filed by either party.

5

As to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, the Court “shall make a de novo

6

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to

7

which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

8

recommendations[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court “may also receive further evidence or

9

recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. The Court has conducted a de

10

novo of the case in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District

11

Local Rule 305. Having reviewed the pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence

12

submitted, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation Plaintiff’s motion to remand be

13

granted and this action remanded to Stanislaus County Superior Court to be supported by the record

14

and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings and recommendations

15

issued April 1, 2013 (doc. 37) in full, GRANTS Plaintiff’s March 6, 2013 motion to remand (doc.

16

30) and REMANDS this action to Stanislaus County Superior Court. The Court respectfully directs

17

the Clerk of Court to terminate Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss (doc. 27) and close the case.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:
0m8i78

April 17, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2