Johnson v. Roque et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/242014 adopting 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 8 and 10 Motions to Dismiss.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-1628-AWI-SMS

v.
CARLOS ROQUE; MAGDALENA
FERNANDEZ; TRIPLE S GOLDEN
STATE CORPORATION, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-10,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COURT
DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
(Docs. 8 & 10)

Defendants.

16
17

On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff Scott Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the Sacramento

18

division of this district. Doc. 1. The defendants are Carlos Roque, Magdalena Fernandez, and

19

Triple S Golden State Corporation (“Defendants”). On October 9, 2013, the case was transferred to

20

this division. Doc. 21; Local Rule 120(d). Motions to dismiss were filed by Roque and Fernandez

21

(doc. 8) and by Triple S (doc. 10). Plaintiff opposed. Docs. 14, 24. Defendants did not reply.

22

Alongside their motions to dismiss, Defendants also moved for Rule 11 sanctions. Docs. 6, 9.

23

Plaintiff opposed and cross-moved for sanctions. Doc. 15. Defendants later withdrew their motions

24

for sanctions. Docs. 29, 30. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions remained on calendar.

25

The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who on December 13, 2013 recommended

26

Defendants’ motions be denied, with a stay remaining on Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions pending

27

consideration of these Findings and Recommendations by the District Judge. Doc. 32.

28
1

1

The Findings and Recommendations provided fourteen days to file objections. None were

2

filed. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of

3

this case and finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

4

analysis.

5

Accordingly, the Court orders that:

6

1.

The Findings and Recommendations are adopted in full;

7

2.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss are DENIED; and

8

3.

The stay on Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is lifted.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2